Oral Answers to Questions

HEALTH

The Secretary of State was asked—

Mesothelioma

Tony Lloyd: What the life expectancy of a mesothelioma sufferer is; and what steps he is taking to improve this.

Hazel Blears: The one-year survival rate for adults diagnosed with mesothelioma between 1986 and 1990 was about 27 per cent. A number of clinical trials relating to the condition are under way. Once the evidence from those trials is available we will consider whether the National Institute for Clinical Excellence should be asked to develop clinical guidelines for the treatment of mesothelioma.

Tony Lloyd: Does my hon. Friend recognise that mesothelioma is something of a Cinderella in the world of cancer? Many cancer specialists argue that we actually need access to specialist facilities for mesothelioma so that people can be diagnosed promptly and receive rapid treatment. Survival rates would thus be pushed up massively, as they have been in other countries. The real issue is that mesothelioma sufferers are not diagnosed early enough; GPs and other gatekeepers must be much more aware that that killer disease can cease to be a killer if people are diagnosed early.

Hazel Blears: I know that my hon. Friend has campaigned for mesothelioma sufferers in his area. He is right: 90 per cent. of those cancers are linked to exposure to asbestos. Diagnosis is difficult and there is controversy about the type of treatment that is appropriate. There are two clinical trials looking into chemotherapy, surgery and palliative care to find out which combination of those treatments is the most effective. We need early diagnosis and good treatment for that cancer, as for other forms of cancer, and my hon. Friend will be aware of the massive amount of investment that the Government are putting into cancer treatment, with new equipment, more surgeons and new drugs.

David Tredinnick: The hon. Lady will be aware that one of the side effects of this lung condition is that it causes great anxiety and that one of the most effective ways of treating anxiety is to use the herb kava kava, which the Government are about to ban despite the fact that there are serious disputes over the medical evidence, including research from the United States. Will the hon. Lady give an undertaking to look at the research again? If she is going to ban kava kava, will she also ban aspirin and paracetamol, which account for a number of lives every year?

Hazel Blears: Clearly, this kind of cancer is extremely serious. That is why the Government are exploring all kinds of treatment—from chemotherapy, to surgery and to palliative care. The hon. Gentleman knows very well indeed that the evidence on kava kava has been looked at on five separate occasions by expert medical committees and expert scientific advisers. The evidence is clear: the links with liver disease and hepato-toxicity are such that kava kava needs to be withdrawn from the market. However, the importance of treating this type of cancer is a top priority for the Government.

Hospital Cleanliness

Bill Wiggin: If he will make a statement on hospital cleanliness.

David Lammy: Patients told us that they wanted hospitals to be cleaner and more comfortable. The NHS plan provided a framework to meet that expectation, supported by £60 million. As a result of that investment, and the efforts of the NHS, there are now no hospitals where environmental standards, including cleanliness, have been assessed as less than acceptable by independent inspection teams.

Bill Wiggin: A hundred thousand people a year catch hospital-acquired infections; 5,000 of those people die from them. That costs the Government at least £1 billion a year and a 10 per cent. reduction in hospital-acquired infections would free up 364,056 bed days. We are grateful for the Government's attempted response because the matter is so serious, but why are hospitals still dirty after six years of a Labour Government who told us that there were only 24 hours to save the NHS?

David Lammy: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the issue is serious, although his figures slightly exaggerate the position. What is important is that we have the data collection for a baseline on which to make an assessment. We are doing that for the first time. We have also put £60 million into cleanliness in our hospitals. Our inspection teams say that our hospitals are getting cleaner. It is also important to remember that performance indicators and star ratings will ensure cleanliness in our hospitals.

Paul Flynn: It is offensive and sickening to hear Opposition Members turn this into a political issue when we all know that the cuts made in the health service during the 1980s and early '90s were responsible for the downgrading of hospital cleanliness. My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the work that has been done, but it remains a scandal that illnesses arising from the spread of methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus continue to multiply in our hospitals. Sadly, when we visit hospitals we often notice that the standards of cleanliness and hygiene have not returned to what they were a couple of decades ago.

David Lammy: My hon. Friend makes a good point. The introduction of modern matrons will assist in that process, as will a tough, new inspection process conducted by the Commission for Health Improvement.

Michael Spicer: Why is it that the Government claim to be putting so much more money into the hospital service yet, certainly in Worcestershire, the standards in hospitals and the number of beds are going down?

David Lammy: I am quite sure that that is not true. Clinicians, housekeepers, porters and receptionists are working as hard in Worcestershire as they are around the country. We are putting in that extra investment, and it is important that it is linked to performance and inspection, which will guarantee that we have the national standards across the board. The hon. Gentleman will know that what got us to this point was the compulsory competitive tendering that was brought in by the former Administration.

Bed Blocking

Andrew Robathan: How many hospital beds are occupied by geriatric patients who could be cared for outside hospital.

John Hutton: The number of delayed discharges continues to fall because of the investment and reforms that the Government are making. Following the £300 million additional investment in tackling delayed discharges that we made in October 2001, delayed discharges have fallen by 24 per cent. Since 1997, the number of delayed discharges for those over 75 has fallen by 39 per cent.

Andrew Robathan: Is it not the case that there is a reduction in residential care homes? Is not that reduction in places for the elderly caused by failed Government policies, motivated in part by prejudice against private care homes? Perhaps the Minister can explain what is the logic in fining local authorities, which will further reduce the ability of social services departments to care for the elderly and others, when the reduction is actually the result of failed Government policy?

John Hutton: No, a 39 per cent. fall in delayed discharges does not equate under any objective analysis to a failure in Government policy. We are improving the range of services available to treat more older people, more quickly, when they can come out of hospital. The hon. Gentleman may disagree with those on the Conservative Front Bench, but the problem that he and, I suspect, probably all his hon. Friends have is that they cannot complain about a lack of funding for social care services—I assume that that is what he is arguing about—when his party has never been able to commit itself to matching the existing spending that is being provided. In their entire time in office between 1992 and 1997, the Conservatives only managed a 0.1 per cent. increase in social services spending. We are doing significantly better than that, and until the hon. Gentleman and his friends can match the investment that we are making, they had better go away and do their sums again.

George Stevenson: My right hon. Friend will be aware that the national health service in north Staffordshire is presently in the process of reducing elderly care beds in the NHS by about 50 per cent. At the same time, there is enormous concern that, in spite of the additional resources that the Government are making available to social services and the NHS, there is a growing gap between resources available under the NHS and those available to social services to provide the care that is necessary, particularly intermediate care. Will my right hon. Friend look at that situation because there is enormous concern about it in north Staffordshire? I would be enormously grateful to him if I could be advised what he intends to try to do about it.

John Hutton: I always take very seriously what my hon. Friend brings to the attention of the House, and I will certainly make inquiries into the issue that he raises. We are building up capacity in the NHS and social care to treat more people, particularly more older people, more quickly, with a wider range of more capable services. However, I assure my hon. Friend that I will look into the issue that he raises and I will come back to him with some answers.

Boris Johnson: Will the Minister join me in congratulating the many thousands of local people who have raised money in south Oxfordshire and elsewhere to rebuild the Watlington hospital, thus helping to alleviate the crisis in bed blocking because it will provide 60 beds for long-term care, respite care and care for the elderly? Will he take the opportunity now to congratulate all those people on doing so on their own initiative and perhaps to apologise for the Labour Government's decision to close that hospital?

John Hutton: The Labour Government made no such decision. I would certainly want to congratulate the hon. Gentleman's constituents on making that investment and putting the work into Watlington hospital, which I know myself because I used to live very close to Watlington. I am delighted that a future has been found for the hospital. We will be increasingly considering a wider range of roles for smaller community cottage hospitals to play in the NHS of the future, and we will be able to do so because of the investment that we are putting in, which he and his hon. Friends would take out of the NHS.

Health Provision

Peter Bradley: What progress he has made in reducing the postcode lottery in health provision.

Alan Milburn: New national standards and the work of the National Institute for Clinical Excellence are spearheading our attack on the postcode lottery of care. However, the biggest lottery in health care is between patients who have to wait for treatment on the NHS and those who can afford to pay for it privately. I can tell the House today that, building on the choices already offered to NHS heart patients, it is my intention to make choice of hospital available to more NHS patients who need an operation, so that by December 2005 all NHS patients will have choice within the health service, instead of having to opt out.

Peter Bradley: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer, but I wish to direct his attention to a different kind of postcode lottery. I acknowledge the significant increase in funding for the Telford and Wrekin primary care trust of 34 per cent. revenue and 14 per cent. capital over the next three years, which is the top of the range in both orders. However, will he acknowledge that Telford and Wrekin start from the position of having £719 to spend per patient per year, compared with an average nationally of £819, and that we start £12 million, or 9 per cent., behind our fair shares target? In three years' time we will have closed that gap to £10.5 million, or 6 per cent., but will he use targeted funding to help Telford and Wrekin and other PCTs to close that gap more quickly?

Alan Milburn: My hon. Friend makes a good point about the problems that his local health service and primary care trust face. As he knows, that is why we adjusted the formula for redistributing cash, and I made a statement to the House in December announcing new resources and a new formula. Those will inevitably take time to kick in, but he is right to say that the PCT in his area has received a well above the national average share of resources—more than 30 per cent.—which will allow the local health service to plan to meet needs in the local community. It is better that such decisions are taken at a local level, instead of through extra targeted funding that we could provide nationally.

Richard Taylor: When will the document on configuring hospital services, which will have the aim of preventing inequalities and the postcode lottery, be published?

Alan Milburn: Very shortly.

Brian Iddon: My right hon. Friend will know that the Royal Bolton hospital is very short of capacity, and I hope that he will come to see that for himself before too long. Does he agree, therefore, that the introduction of the Greater Manchester choice programme will alleviate some of that pressure and help my constituents to access operations in the hospitals in the Greater Manchester conurbation?

Alan Milburn: Yes, I hope to visit the Bolton area before too long to fulfil a promise that I gave to my hon. Friend. He will be aware that parts of the north-west, including his own, have some of the highest waiting times for hospital treatment. Overall, waiting times are falling, but they are still too long in some areas. That is why we will announce plans today for patients to exercise choice. If they cannot get a short waiting time at their local hospital, they will be able to choose another hospital. That will be the case in Greater Manchester and in other parts of the country, so that we can test the new approach and ensure that patients can exercise informed choice in elective surgery in all parts of the NHS. We intend to bring forward that scheme in July and to extend it to the whole country next year.

Andrew Rosindell: Will the Secretary of State acknowledge that one of the worst aspects of the postcode lottery is that relating to coronary heart disease? Has he had time to see the figures published by the British Heart Foundation, which were printed in last week's Romford Recorder, showing that the London borough of Havering has one of the worst records for that? Will he outline what the Government intend to do to improve that service?

Alan Milburn: I regret to say that I have not read the Romford Recorder—

Andrew Rosindell: Do so today.

Alan Milburn: If the hon. Gentleman insists and provided that he is not in it. He is right to raise the issue. Coronary heart disease is the biggest killer in our country—it kills between 125,00 and 150,000 people a year. We know two things: first, many of the deaths and morbidity are preventable if action is taken, which is why I am pleased that, over the course of the last three years, the prescribing of cholesterol-lowering drugs, which prevent heart attacks, has doubled because of extra resources going in. Secondly, in too many parts of the country, where the incidence of coronary heart disease is highest, the rates of heart surgery have been lowest. That is why targeted funding is being made available to ensure that we close the health gap between the poorest areas and the more prosperous parts of the country. All that I would say to the hon. Gentleman, in all candour, is that if we want to achieve a 20 per cent. cut in heart surgery waiting times, that cannot be achieved by making 20 per cent. cuts in funding.

Andy Burnham: May I warmly welcome today's extension of the choice programme to patients in Greater Manchester? In doing so, will the Secretary of State assure me that all patients across Greater Manchester will be included under that scheme, and not just those nearest the available capacity? In the long term, will he consider developing sufficient diagnostic and treatment capacity in the west of the Greater Manchester area, closer to the homes of my constituents?

Alan Milburn: We will certainly consider that latter issue. As my hon. Friend is aware, late last year, we issued invitations both to the national health service and to private sector providers to build new diagnostic and treatment centres in those parts of the country where waiting times are longest. The DTCs—which are surgery centres—separate emergency work from elective work so that operations are not cancelled and waiting times can be brought down. On my hon. Friend's first point, choice for waiting, whether for an orthopaedic operation or for an eye operation, will apply from the summer of this year in all parts of Greater Manchester, and will apply in all parts of the country from next year.

Carers

Andrew Selous: What assessment he has made of the needs of carers before introducing the Community Care (Delayed Discharges Bill).

Jacqui Smith: We have considered the needs of carers carefully when developing policy on delayed discharges. Patients being in hospital when they would be more appropriately cared for in the community is bad for them and their families and carers. At the Report stage of the Community Care (Delayed Discharges etc.) Bill, several Government amendments were accepted that will bring services to carers within the scope of the Bill.

Andrew Selous: I thank the Minister for that reply, but does she accept the real distress caused to carers by the omission of any reference to their needs in the draft Bill? Can she assure the House that as a result of this legislation there will be no repetition of the type of incident that happened in my constituency recently, in which a mentally ill patient was sent home from hospital without his carer even knowing, causing a great deal of distress, as the gentleman could not be found for some considerable time?

Jacqui Smith: Both through the Bill and the hospital discharge workbook that we have published recently, we are improving and building on good practice and ensuring that, as the hon. Gentleman rightly points out, carers are involved in the important decisions about discharge and the services that need to be put in place afterwards. I agree with him that that is a priority. That is why Carers UK welcomed the amendments to the Bill and said that they are
	"an important step forward for carers' rights."
	I am therefore very pleased that the Government brought forward those amendments. They represent, along with the considerable extra investment that the Government are putting into providing services for carers, the priority and recognition that the Government have for their extremely important contribution.

Phyllis Starkey: While welcoming the huge contribution that carers make, does the Minister agree that relatives should not be forced into an excessive commitment of care because of a lack of adequate social services support? In that context, does she agree that the decision of the Liberal Democrat-controlled Milton Keynes council to increase maximum home care charges from £21.25 a week to £100 a week is not helpful? If my constituents are unable to afford those charges, what does she advise them to do?

Jacqui Smith: My hon. Friend makes an important point. I have no doubt that, as she usually does, she is campaigning on behalf of people in her constituency who need those social care services. I hope that all local authorities, when taking decisions on provision and charging, will bear in mind the considerable extra investment that the Government have put into social services. There will be a doubling of the real-terms increase over the next three years. I hope that local authorities will ensure that that is reflected in better services and better access for vulnerable people.

George Young: Does the Minister recall that this Bill had a rough time in this House, being criticised on Second and Third Reading by hon. Members on her side of the House as well as on this side; and does she realise that it was mauled on Second Reading in another place? There is now little prospect of it reaching the statute book by 1 April. Would it not be best to withdraw the Bill?

Jacqui Smith: No. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Lammy), pointed out that our considerable extra investment has already brought about reductions in delayed discharge. We believe in the need to back up that investment with reforms to the system. Those reforms should put the needs of people—especially the older people who are currently trapped in hospital—at the centre of our system. I am disappointed that Opposition Members talk a lot about delayed discharge and the needs of older people but fail to support the investment and reforms that will ensure that progress can continue.

Nurse Recruitment

Ivan Henderson: If he will make a statement on nurse recruitment in the past three months.

Alan Milburn: The latest figures show that the number of nurses who are working in the national health service rose by an estimated 22,500 in the 18 months leading up to March last year. The target in the NHS plan for an extra 20,000 nurses by 2004 was therefore met two years early. To increase the number of nurses, therapists and health care scientists still further, the latest phase of our recruitment campaign will be launched later this month.

Ivan Henderson: Last week, on one of my regular visits to Colchester general hospital—which serves my constituents—a number of nurses asked about the introduction of foundation hospitals. Will my right hon. Friend assure me and those nurses—who included newly recruited nurses and nurses in training—that their job security and pay and conditions will be protected under any changes that arise through the introduction of foundation hospitals?

Alan Milburn: That is our intention. As my hon. Friend knows, our agenda for change negotiations that we concluded with the NHS trade unions late last year are currently being debated among members of a variety of trade unions. Providing that there is a vote in favour of the result of those negotiations, the agenda for change will go ahead. It will apply to NHS foundation trusts and NHS trusts. I hope that nurses and others will see the advantage of that. It promises fairer and better pay for nurses. Clearly, the more responsibilities that nurses take on, the more rewards they can get.
	In the past, nurses' pay was staged, the number of nurses in training was falling, and the number of nurses in post was being cut. Today, the number of nurses in the NHS is rising, more nurses are in post and more nurses are getting fairer and better pay as a result. All of that has resulted from the Government's decision to put extra resources into the NHS; and all of it will be jeopardised, as my hon. Friend knows, by the policy of the Opposition to remove those resources.

Evan Harris: If all the targets for nurse recruitment have been met, why did agency spending on nurses rise to nearly £500 million last year? That spending has doubled under this Government. Is it not the case that NHS Professionals is failing and that the Secretary of State has had to order a review into its working as several large hospitals have withdrawn from it? Is it not the Secretary of State's failure to retain nurses that has led to wasteful spending on agency nurses? He has eventually shown that he can spend more, but he has not shown that he can spend wisely.

Alan Milburn: Well, on the number of nurses in the NHS, the hon. Gentleman knows fine well that the targets that were set in the NHS plan—which he and others said could not be met—have been met well ahead of target. I am talking not only about the number of nurses working in the NHS, but about the number of nurses who have been recruited to the NHS. The hon. Gentleman knows also that vacancy rates among nurses are falling. It is true that nurse vacancies exist in many parts of the country, including his own. That will take time to put right. Therefore, in the short term, bank and agency nurses will be used. It is important that the NHS comes together to use its purchasing muscle to ensure that it gets the best deal where agency and bank nurses are used. That is what NHS Professionals has been trying to do, but I know that there is more to do. However, because resources are going into the NHS, more nurses are working in the NHS. It is our intention to keep the momentum moving forward.

Ann Cryer: I am delighted at the increase in recruitment, but has my right hon. Friend any figures about what percentage of recruitment is taking place in the United Kingdom and involves training in the United Kingdom? I ask because I have spent quite a lot of time over the past 18 months visiting the Bradford royal infirmary and St. James's in Leeds. I am aware of the high quality of nursing that is provided in those two hospitals by nurses from throughout the world. However, I am concerned about the impact that our recruitment is having on places such as the Philippines.

Alan Milburn: My hon. Friend is right to raise these concerns. As she knows, the national health service has for many years relied on nurses and, indeed, doctors and other health care professionals from overseas. It is worth saying that, without those overseas clinical professionals, the NHS would not be able to provide the quality of care that it does. We in the NHS owe those people an enormous debt of gratitude.
	We will continue to recruit where it is appropriate to do so. For example, we have signed a memorandum of understanding with the Government of the Philippines, because the unusual situation there is that it has a surplus, rather than a shortage, of nurses. I can also report to my hon. Friend that, over the past two or three years, 13,000 nurses who had left the NHS have returned to it. A further 1,800 are in the pipeline and are preparing to return. That has come about because of the policies that are being pursued, the reforms to the career structures of nurses and, most important, the extra resources that are going into the NHS.

John Baron: Further to that last question, the Secretary of State will know that in the five years since Nelson Mandela appealed to Britain to stop poaching nurses from South Africa, the number of them entering this country has risen more than fivefold. Meanwhile, we suck in more and more nurses from developing countries across the world. Despite the Government's code of conduct on the issue, a major part of the problem is that only about a half of the private agencies that are used by the Government and the NHS to recruit nurses from abroad have signed up to the code. If the Secretary of State accepts that poor countries need their nurses even more than we do, when will the Government stop sidestepping this issue and ban the NHS from dealing with agencies that ignore the rules?

Alan Milburn: There is no question of sidestepping this important issue. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman thinks that it is an important issue now because, when his Government were in power, they did nothing about it. As far as this Government's actions are concerned, as he is aware, we do not actively recruit from developing countries, including South Africa. What is more, I can assure him and the House that we do not use agencies that actively recruit from developing countries, including South Africa.

General Medical Practice

Bob Blizzard: What action he is taking to attract more people into general medical practice.

John Hutton: The Government are committed to recruiting and retaining more GPs. That is why we have introduced new financial incentives for doctors coming into general practice and to delay their retirement. That goes together with more flexible working and better child care. The new general medical services contract will also act as a further incentive to recruitment and retention.

Bob Blizzard: My right hon. Friend may be aware of a recent survey of GP vacancies carried out by the British Medical Association. Is he aware that some of the figures in the survey are out of date? For example, in my constituency the vacancy rate is 3.5 per cent. and not 7.8 per cent. However, there are still 4.5 vacant GP posts in my area, and they are in surgeries that serve the least prosperous neighbourhoods. What more can my right hon. Friend do to attract GPs to those areas so that the poorest communities do not suffer from the general difficulty in recruiting people to general practice?

John Hutton: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for pointing out those facts. More GPs have been recruited in his part of the country, and we will continue to explore ways in which we can improve recruitment and retention. I have told him and the House that the new contract that we are negotiating with the British Medical Association and the NHS Confederation will address many of his concerns. We have not reached a final agreement on that contract, but I hope that we will be able to do so shortly. I am confident that if we can reach an agreement we will find a better way of recruiting and retaining more GPs in general practice and dealing with the funding issues that my hon. Friend raised in his pertinent question.

Liam Fox: These promises are not new. The NHS plan promised to recruit an extra 2,000 GPs between 2000 and 2004. How many have been recruited so far?

John Hutton: Four hundred and eighty-three.

Liam Fox: With a year to go, the Government have not even achieved a quarter of the number that they said was required to make the NHS plan work. Up and down the country, PCTs are telling us that because of Government-imposed commitments and deficits carried by the PCTs there will be little or no money for primary care development this year. The GP contract keeps slipping back and morale is falling; 28 per cent. of GPs say that they are seriously contemplating a career change; the number of GP vacancies has risen by 70 per cent. in the past year; and the number of applicants for each vacancy has fallen from 8.5 in 2000 to just 4.4 now. Will the Minister admit that his stewardship of general practice has been an unmitigated disaster?

John Hutton: No, I certainly would not. The hon. Gentleman's game is clear and transparent to all of us. He wants to talk down the national health service because he wants to convince the British public that it can never be the service that we want it to be. In truth, the picture is very different, as there are 1,500 more GPs working in the NHS now than when he was in government, when his right hon. and hon. Friends were cutting the number of GPs going into training. However, those numbers are now increasing substantially. Yes, there is more recruitment and retention work to be done, and we will do it. However, we will take no strictures from the hon. Gentleman, because his policies would take money out of the national health service, which is something that we simply will not tolerate.

Gareth Thomas: Does my right hon. Friend think that further measures to improve the nation's public health will help to increase the numbers going into general practice? Such measures could include a ban on smoking in restaurants and other public places. If another brave, bold Government Back Bencher could be found to make the case for such a ban, perhaps under the ten-minute rule, would my right hon. Friend undertake to listen to such a case?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Minister does not need to answer that question.

Gary Streeter: Can the Minister explain why so many GPs in my constituency are complaining about the increasing burden of paperwork and form-filling? If he wants to recruit more GPs, would it not be better to look after the GPs that we have by removing some of that form-filling and all that red tape, enabling them to treat patients, which is why they entered the service in the first place?

John Hutton: I agree. We need to reduce bureaucracy and the red tape associated with general practice, which is precisely what the new general medical services contracts will do.

Care Homes

Hugh Bayley: What steps he is taking to increase the number of nursing home beds and improve domiciliary nursing and social care services in areas with a shortage of such beds and services.

Mark Prisk: How many places are available in care homes in England; and if he will make a statement.

Jacqui Smith: The latest data show that there were some 528,000 places in care homes for residential or nursing care in England. On 23 July, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced new targets for older people's services, along with an investment of £1 billion to meet them. Those funds will help to provide 500,000 more pieces of community equipment, 70,000 more social care intermediate care places, 30,000 more home care services of over five hours a week, and higher fees for care homes where councils judge that that is necessary.

Hugh Bayley: My hon. Friend will be aware that there is a continuing, acute shortage of nursing-care beds in and around York, so it was with great pleasure that I noted that last April the Government made £1.4 million available to my local primary care trust to provide intermediate care. Regrettably, however, there is still no plan for where those beds will be provided, let alone a construction process. Will my hon. Friend speak to the local primary care trust and get a clear statement of the time scale for providing those much-needed additional beds? When she does so, will she also look at the possibility of the PCT providing 24-hour district nursing services, which might reduce the demand for beds, because some people who would otherwise go into care homes would instead be able to return to their own homes?

Jacqui Smith: My hon. Friend makes an important point about the need to develop intermediate care as a bridge between hospital and home, and often as a way of keeping people out of hospital in the first place. Notwithstanding his concern about the additional investment, I am pleased to note that in his area there are an extra 579 places for intermediate care, over and above that provided in 1999–2000. Given that we are, in addition, making extra investment available, as he pointed out, I undertake to look into the time scale for the development of further additional intermediate care provision in my hon. Friend's constituency.

Mark Prisk: In my constituency, yet another care home, Park house, has just closed, turning away many vulnerable people. Rather sadly, a few days later, three of the former residents had passed away. Because the Government's care standards apply to newly registered homes, there is a financial barrier to us being able to turn that back into an operating establishment. Does the Minister recognise that the standards are a barrier to new homes being opened? Will she be more flexible about the way in which the standards are applied, so that new home places can be provided?

Jacqui Smith: As I discussed with the National Care Homes Association last Thursday, the introduction of national standards is an important step forward for provision, and many providers have argued for it over the years. The hon. Gentleman knows that we have been and are being flexible about environmental care standards with respect to existing homes, but we have a responsibility to improve provision for our older people in the care home sector, in particular. That is why we have maintained the standards, which received wide agreement for new provision and extensions to existing provision. Alongside that, we have ensured that local authorities have the investment necessary to pay the level of fees that will allow us to improve quality for our older people, not just in care home provision, but more broadly across the services that they need.

Harry Barnes: How many hospitals employ social worker teams to draw down provision of care in the community? I understand that the Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton), visited Ealing hospital, which has done pioneering work on bed blocking. The interconnection between that and care provision in the community is extremely important.

Jacqui Smith: Increasingly, with the extra investment made available to social services departments, they are taking more seriously their responsibility to maintain a presence in hospitals and to consider particularly the needs of older people and ways of ensuring that they are discharged more quickly, and they are undertaking that work more effectively. I know that there are also increasing numbers of accident and emergency departments where there are social workers and other professionals who can ensure that older people who come through that route can get care elsewhere, if they do not need to be admitted to hospital. My hon. Friend makes an important point which, with reference to the hospital discharge work book that I mentioned earlier, we are promoting through new investment and new guidance.

Simon Burns: When will the Minister come out of her perpetual state of denial and recognise that there is a serious crisis in long-term care? Does she fully appreciate the distress and the problems being caused in certain parts of the country because of the loss of more than 60,000 beds over the past five years and the reduction of more than 100,000 care home packages for domiciliary care for households? More and more individuals cannot find places in their immediate vicinity and have to move further from home, family and friends to find a bed. The Minister cannot continue to live in her Alice in Wonderland-type world. She must face facts and come up with realistic ways of addressing the problem, which is causing so much distress to so many in this country.

Jacqui Smith: I very much agree with the hon. Gentleman that we need a realistic approach in addressing the problem. In particular, we need to provide local authorities with the resources to be able to support the kind of provision that is necessary. [Hon. Members: "Where has the money gone?"] Out of the £300 million that we made available as the building care capacity grant, over £7 million went to the hon. Gentleman's county of Essex, which, for example, spent £413,000 to create new posts for older people's mental health services and spent money on additional assessor capacity and additional home-care training places. That is why it has been able to reduce delayed discharges from 16.9 per cent. in 1997 to 3.4 per cent. in September 2002 and to increase intermediate care places by 139 over 1999.
	We live in the real world, but we provide the money in order to ensure that that real world can be made a reality for the people that we serve, unlike hon. Members opposite.

Teenage Cancer

Martin Smyth: If he will make a statement on provision for teenage cancer patients.

Hazel Blears: We are aware that teenagers with cancer have specific needs, and we are taking action to meet them. We are providing funding to enable more teenage cancer patients to enter trials of the latest treatments, and we are looking at how teenagers can participate in the design of health services centred around their particular needs.

Martin Smyth: I thank the Minister for that answer. Will she commend the work of the Teenage Cancer Trust? Because these units have been set up, cancer specialists have noticed a 15 per cent. improvement in recovery rates. Surely this improvement should be spread throughout the country.

Hazel Blears: I am delighted to welcome the work of the Teenage Cancer Trust. I have no doubt that by providing an environment in which teenagers with cancer can be together it is aiding their recovery. It must be devastating for any family to discover that their teenager has cancer, and providing them with services appropriate to their needs is extremely important to us as a Government. I am hopeful that the Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health will begin to draw the views of young people, children, teenagers and adolescents into designing our health services, an area that has been lacking in the past. The Teenage Cancer Trust can help to show us the way in this regard.

David Kidney: A great deal of interest in this subject was shown at the palliative services care conference, hosted by my local primary care trust, that I attended last Friday. Can my hon. Friend say what success the Government are having this year in getting to the front-line services, especially the services provided by hospices, the £50 million of additional spending they announced last year for palliative care services for cancer patients and those others who suffer from terminal conditions?

Hazel Blears: My hon. Friend raises an extremely important area of concern to hon. Members across the House. He highlights the fact that we have put an extra £50 million into specialist palliative care. We have set up a unique mechanism, a national partnership group involving the voluntary sectors—Help the Hospices and all those other partners who work in this area with us—chaired by the national cancer director, Professor Mike Richards, to ensure that the money not only reaches the front line but is spent in a way that makes a real difference to people in these circumstances. I look forward with great enthusiasm to the work of that national partnership group, which will make a significant impact in this very important area of care.

Nick Gibb: The Minister will be aware of the success of King Edward VII hospital in Midhurst in treating teenage and other cancer patients. The residents of west Sussex are grateful to the Government for the two-month moratorium for that hospital. Can the hon. Lady set out the latest position on whether the hospital will remain open for the long term?

Hazel Blears: As the hon. Gentleman knows from the debate in Westminster Hall just a couple of weeks ago, the NHS has been working closely with the liquidator of King Edward VII hospital, and we have been able to provide some interim support to the hospital to ensure that it can continue to care for NHS patients. Clearly, the situation is still developing. The matter is in the hands of the liquidator, and the NHS will continue to work extremely closely with the hospital because our top priority is to ensure that NHS patients get continuity of high-quality care. That will be our foremost priority in relation to King Edward VII hospital.

Foundation Trusts

Julia Drown: What non-financial freedom will be given to foundation trusts.

John Hutton: The non-financial freedoms that will be open to NHS foundation trusts were set out in "A Guide to NHS Foundation Trusts", which was published on 11 December 2002.

Julia Drown: That guide said that foundation trusts would not have to have patients forums, but it did not mention much else. Some of the trusts that hope to gain foundation status are hoping that they will not have to supply information to the Department of Health and that they will be able to abandon Government initiatives such as modern matrons. Will that be the case, and if so, how will we deal with parliamentary answers? For example, will we no longer be able to say how many nurses the NHS has because we can only say how many there are in non-foundation trust hospitals?

John Hutton: It is important that we strike a better balance between what is done at the centre in the NHS and what is done on the front line. That is very much what our proposals on foundation trusts are designed to do. It is perfectly possible to strike that better balance without compromising what my hon. Friend rightly identified as very important information about the performance of the NHS that all hon. Members would want to have. Those data will not be compromised or lost. That is one issue on which I hope I can at least reassure her.

Nicholas Winterton: I hope that the Macclesfield district general hospital, which has a three-star rating, will apply for foundation status. Is it the Government's view that that new status will give hospitals an opportunity to respond more quickly and positively to local needs? Is it not very important that the hospital trusts have a very close liaison with the primary care trusts? Otherwise, conflict could occur between them.

John Hutton: Yes; I can certainly say to the hon. Gentleman that local service delivery and responsiveness are very much what we want NHS foundation trusts to be able to provide. We want them to be able to respond more effectively and quickly because less weight from the centre is bearing down on them. Generally, it has been my experience that, in all the hospitals that I have visited, people are able to identify problems, but it is usually local people who are best able and best placed to design solutions. I think that we should let that happen wherever possible. The Macclesfield hospital is an excellent hospital and the staff there are doing a brilliant job and thoroughly deserve their three stars. Of course, precisely what happens in relation to its application for foundation status is a matter for the trust and the local community.

David Hinchliffe: As part of the Government's proposals on foundation trusts, the idea of local governance has been brought forward, which is very interesting. In developing that idea, will my right hon. Friend assure me that local communities will have a say in whether applications for foundation trusts will be made in the first instance? In an area such as west Yorkshire, for example, where the three-star Bradford trust may well be a foundation applicant, would it not be appropriate for my constituents in Wakefield to have a say in the process?

John Hutton: We spelt out in the guide a clear process whereby applications would be made. I think that I can give my hon. Friend a very clear assurance on the point on which he sought clarification.

Ambulance Services

Patrick Cormack: If he will make a statement on ambulance services in England and Wales.

David Lammy: The ambulance service in England has made real progress. Compared with 1997, trusts are responding significantly more quickly to a significantly larger number of calls. Ambulances are better equipped and paramedics better trained. The service still faces challenges, but with support and investment it will continue to succeed.

Patrick Cormack: I thank the Minister for that rather general answer, but does he agree that the Staffordshire ambulance service, both in response time and general efficiency, has an exemplary performance? [Interruption.] I am glad that the Secretary of State is echoing those remarks from the Front Bench. What is the Minister doing specifically to encourage Staffordshire and to encourage other services to be as good as Staffordshire?

David Lammy: The hon. Gentleman is right: Staffordshire has done particularly well, especially given the outbreak of a diarrhoea and vomiting bug last month. What is happening in Staffordshire is that the emergency care networks are requiring the ambulance trust to work with the primary care trust, the A and E department and also the emergency care collaborative, bringing best practice to Staffordshire as to the rest of the country.

Chris Grayling: While echoing the compliments paid by my hon. Friend to the Staffordshire ambulance service, hon. Members should be aware that in almost every part of the country ambulances with patients inside are sitting outside accident and emergency departments that are unable to admit them because managers will not take them in order to meet the four-hour waiting targets. At an extreme, we have discovered that ambulances have had to wait for 414 minutes for a patient to be admitted. Two weeks ago, in the west midlands, 50 per cent. of ambulances were tied up at A and E departments. Ambulance services have warned that they may not always be able to answer 999 calls. The situation is a scandal. Will the Minister say what he is going to do to put a stop to it? Will he explain why he has told ambulance service chief executives—

Mr. Speaker: Order.

David Lammy: I have to ask the hon. Gentleman not to talk down the ambulance service in that way. He is mistaken about the target—the clock starts to run after 15 minutes, so there is no incentive to wait outside in the manner that he suggests. What are we doing about the situation? The emergency care network requires our primary care trusts to work with the community, ambulance trusts, A and E departments and emergency care collaboratives. I recommend that the hon. Gentleman goes to see the collaboratives and the network at work.

Andrew MacKinlay: Will the Minister write to all ambulance trusts to ensure that they are complying with the Department's requirements on combating methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus—MRSA—given that corners are being cut regarding ambulances' cleanliness because they are being used so intensively?

David Lammy: My hon. Friend may know that the chief medical officer is considering that matter and issuing best practice advice. At the same time, we are attempting to collect the right data across the NHS so that we can measure the incidence of hospital-acquired infection.

Hywel Williams: As regards ambulance services in England and Wales, in the last quarter the average response rate for category 8 calls—eight minutes in urban areas—was 51.8 per cent. For the best area it was 70 per cent. and for the very worst it was 38.5 per cent. Does not that suggest to the Minister that his colleague in Cardiff is either not doing her job or is not up to her job?

David Lammy: That is very much a matter for Wales.

Hospital Treatment (Waiting Times)

Bill O'Brien: If he will make a statement on progress with the reduction of time for patients waiting for admission to hospital for treatment.

Alan Milburn: Waiting times on virtually every indicator continue to fall. The latest figures show that the number of patients waiting more than 12 months for hospital admission has fallen by 62 per cent. in the last year. Almost half of NHS trusts now have no patient waiting more than 12 months for hospital admission, which is ahead of the target set for April this year.

Bill O'Brien: I thank my right hon. Friend for his response. Although there have been drastic improvements in waiting times, there are still areas that require greater attention. Will he examine the situation, especially in west Yorkshire and in my constituency? Will he also consider the problem of delays for people who are waiting for digital hearing aids, as it could be two years before my constituents receive that service?

Alan Milburn: First, on digital hearing aids, my hon. Friend will be aware that last week I announced that an extra £94 million will be made available so that the 1.8 million people who are hard of hearing or deaf will get access to digital hearing aids on the national health service, for free.
	Secondly, on waiting times for treatment, my hon. Friend is right to say that although waiting times across the piece are falling, there are pockets where they remain too long. As a consequence of the announcements that I will make today, from July this year, in his area of west Yorkshire, patients needing eye operations will have the choice of an alternative hospital where the waiting time for treatment is shorter. That will apply not only in parts of the north, but in parts of the south.

David Cameron: Is the Secretary of State aware that the reason for delayed admission to hospital in Oxfordshire is our dreadful shortage of nurses? Does he realise that we are short of approximately 400 nurses—a vacancy rate of 14 per cent.? When will he extend the freedoms that he plans for foundation hospitals to all hospitals so that we can pay the right rate for recruiting, motivating and retaining nurses? Without that, we shall never make progress.

Alan Milburn: We want as many NHS hospitals and trusts as possible to gain the advantages of foundation status. However, the increase in resources is the main reason for the fall in waiting times in the NHS. The hon. Gentleman cannot acknowledge that because the Conservative party wants to decrease rather than increase NHS resources.

North Atlantic Council

Bernard Jenkin: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about yesterday's meeting of the North Atlantic Council.

Adam Ingram: The North Atlantic Council has been examining the technical procedure for tasking NATO military authorities to undertake contingency planning to deter or defend against a possible—[Hon. Members: "Where is he?"]

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is bad manners. I have granted an urgent question, which a Minister is required to answer. The Minister is here and should be heard.

Peter Tapsell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has been here long enough to know that points of order are taken after the urgent question.

Adam Ingram: Perhaps I should begin again because I do not know whether the country heard the answer that I was giving to the request for an urgent question. The Secretary of State is on his way to Washington to undertake important consultations with a major ally. [Interruption.] I am pleased that the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) shows some sensitivity.
	The North Atlantic Council has been examining the technical procedure for tasking the NATO military authorities to undertake contingency planning to deter or defend against a possible threat to Turkey. Yesterday, three allies broke the silence procedure. They sought further information on the timing of such tasking. I emphasise that there is no debate on the need for the alliance to provide assistance to a NATO member if so requested.
	Yesterday, Turkey requested consultations under article 4 of the north Atlantic treaty. The North Atlantic Council meeting that was scheduled for this morning has been adjourned until 4.30 pm Brussels time for further consideration of the proposal. It is too early to speculate on the outcome of the continuing deliberations.

Bernard Jenkin: First, it is astonishing that the Government had to be dragged to the Dispatch Box to discuss a major international crisis in NATO instead of voluntarily making a statement. It is even more astonishing that the Secretary of State did not come to the House yesterday, when we asked for a statement, instead of scuttling out of the country, albeit on legitimate business, to avoid cross-examination.
	The Opposition broadly continue to support the Government's determination to disarm Saddam Hussein. We gave our fullest support to UN resolution 1441, which demanded
	"a currently accurate, full and complete declaration".
	That has not been forthcoming. It also stated that Saddam Hussein should
	"co-operate fully in the implementation of this resolution".
	He has not done that. It further demanded
	"immediate, unimpeded, unconditional and unrestricted access".
	He has failed to provide that. Resolution 1441 also made it clear that it was a final opportunity for Saddam to comply, and that failure to do that would mean serious consequences.
	It is now time for all those who supported United Nations resolution 1441 to hold to their course. Times when international unity is of such paramount importance are rare. The world and the people whom we represent demand clarity, resolve and unity. I warn the Minister that we are worried about the Government's undermining of British public opinion with such appalling, reprehensible and cack-handed initiatives as the dodgy dossier that No. 10 published last week. Can it be overstated how utterly counterproductive that action has proved to be? How can the Prime Minister now restore his personal authority after he has been so abjectly found out? When did the Secretary of State or the Minister first see the document? Did they give their approval for its publication?
	Even more importantly, unless Europe and the United States can unite, what hope is there that other nations or our own people will follow our lead? All the Saddam Husseins and bin Ladens of this world must be delighted with the allies' present splits and confusion. The Queen's Speech reaffirmed just a few months ago that NATO was
	"the cornerstone of Britain's national security."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 13 November 2002; Vol. 641, c. 4.]
	NATO is needed above all today to be the focus of international unity. Instead, it faces an unprecedented crisis because of the French-led refusal to allow it even to plan for the defence of one of its member states. It is a pity that the Secretary of State's prior engagements prevented him from attending the Munich security conference with me at the weekend. All the other NATO Defence Ministers were discussing this issue there. What hope is there for our peace and security in Europe if this cornerstone of our security structure is now crumbling? What action are the Government taking to shore up the Atlantic alliance?
	I have to tell the Minister—he will not wish to be reminded—that I and my colleagues have long been warning that the Government's support for the European Union's foreign and defence policy was playing into the hands of those who would destroy NATO. Today's chaos stems directly from the St. Malo declaration of 1998, which gave birth to an autonomous EU defence capability outside NATO. This was followed by EU declarations from Helsinki, Cologne, Nice, Faro, Copenhagen and, to cap it all, last week's Le Touquet summit with France. What on earth possessed the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister to sign a declaration last week with President Chirac proclaiming, with a certain irony, that
	"European security and defence policy should match the worldwide ambitions of the EU's common foreign and security policy"?
	It is just a few days later—that declaration has hardly stood the test of time. It just added to the chaos that the Prime Minister first created at St. Malo.
	Even if France eventually supports a second resolution, and joins in military action against Iraq, how will the Secretary of State and the Government prevent the minority in Europe from continuing to undermine NATO? The Government's complacency about NATO, about which we have been warning for years, has now been overwhelmed by events. We have always argued consistently that NATO must remain the paramount alliance for British and European security—the cornerstone of Britain's security.
	Will the Government now commit themselves to restoring the primacy of NATO in Europe—a move that could command majority support in Europe, as it is France, Belgium and Germany that are now isolated? Will the Government now stop promoting EU security structures outside the NATO alliance, and put their diplomatic money where their mouth is and stop aiding and abetting France and its long-held ambition to destroy NATO?

Adam Ingram: Let me try to deal with all the salient questions that the hon. Gentleman asked. There were not many. First, the Government have not been dragged to the House on this issue. We have responded to this urgent request, and our assessment of it was set out in the response that I gave to the hon. Gentleman. I hope that he listened to that, but if he did not absorb what I said at the time, he should read it tomorrow in Hansard.
	The hon. Gentleman described the Secretary of State "scuttling out of the country". That is a very strange description of a senior Minister meeting our major ally as we seek to deal with one of the greatest crises that we have faced for a long, long time. That relates not to the future of NATO, but to all matters pertaining to Iraq and what will flow from it.
	The hon. Gentleman referred to resolution 1441. He should be aware, as I am sure the country is only too well aware, that the Government have made their position clear time after time. We are determined that Saddam Hussein be held to account to the will of the international community. That is set out in resolution 1441, and in the 16 resolutions that preceded it.
	The headline, as it were, for the hon. Gentleman's comments was the "dodgy dossier". That dossier is a Government document based, as is stated on the front cover, on a number of sources, including intelligence material. The first and third sections, which gave rise to most of the media coverage of its publication, are based largely on intelligence material. The first describes the extreme lengths to which Saddam has gone to hide his weapons and obstruct the inspectors: fact. The third describes the impact of the regime on the Iraqi people: fact. The second section describes the way in which the regime is structured: fact. Some of that is based on a work by Dr. Ibrahim al-Marashi, which, as has been made clear in retrospect, should have been acknowledged. [Interruption.] I ask the hon. Gentleman and others who find this humorous to bear in mind that I have listed the three facts on which the dossier is based. Do they disagree with any of those facts?
	Let me now deal with the great moment in my life that occurred at the weekend, when I recognised that the hon. Gentleman was at the same conference as me in Munich. I did not know he was going; the Secretary of State did not know he was going. Perhaps if the Secretary of State had known that the hon. Gentleman was going, he would have changed his arrangements in order to hear the wonderful contribution that the hon. Gentleman made. The hon. Gentleman will have heard me, at the closing session of the conference, setting out very clearly our position on matters to which I have referred before, and also on some of the debate that was emerging over that weekend.
	During a series of questions based on his obsession with the European Union, the hon. Gentleman alighted on his obsession with the French. Let me say this about NATO and the European security and defence policy and all that flows from it. All the NATO countries support this development; America supports it. Our reason for proceeding on those two fronts is to do with lifting capabilities so that there can be the best delivery and best possible interoperability in order to meet the threats that must be faced on a range of fronts.
	If there is any doubt in the hon. Gentleman's mind that NATO is the cornerstone of the Government's security policy, I ask him to look at all the answers that have been given time and again. We have never called into question NATO and our commitment to it. Moreover, if the hon. Gentleman examines our present involvement in current decisions on Iraq, he will see that we are standing alongside the majority in NATO, trying to find a resolution to a difficult question.

Gerald Kaufman: The hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) demonstrated the Conservative party's ability to sink to any occasion. Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that those of us who support the Government's determination to pursue the United Nations route, and who commend the Prime Minister's quest for a second Security Council resolution if need be, are nevertheless deeply concerned about the possibility that the "bull in a china shop" antics of Donald Rumsfeld will inflict serious damage on NATO cohesion, and also demonstrate how important it is for the Government to stress the fact that the next important stage in the essential disarming of Saddam Hussein is the appearance of the inspectors' report on Friday?

Adam Ingram: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his broad support for the Government's approach. We have said where the Government's preference lies on the second resolution, but I should point out that in fact, it would be not the second resolution but the 18th. I shall not respond to his criticisms of the United States Secretary of Defence, whom I heard at the Munich conference give a very clear exposition of what needs to be done in support of the United Nations. The United States clearly has very strong views on this issue, and I would guess that the vast majority of the countries that were represented at that conference wholly supported his arguments. There were differences among one or two countries on the question of how we move forward, but that is the nature of an alliance. If differences exist, they have got to be expressed and understood by all the other members of the alliance. Then, we must find a consensus in order to move forward.
	My right hon. Friend concluded by mentioning the need to ensure that Saddam Hussein does disarm—a point that we have made time and again. If he is not going to disarm in line with the will of the international community, he will be made to disarm.

Paul Keetch: I welcome this timely question from the shadow Defence Secretary, and I congratulate him on it. The reality is that one thing is certain in NATO, in this House and in the country: the case for war has not yet been proved by this Government, and anything that can help to inform the British public about the very important times ahead is to be welcomed. Does the Minister agree that the responsibility for resolving the current crisis in NATO lies with both sides, and that we must not allow multilateral treaties, international law or even the UN and NATO to become collateral damage in the legitimate desire to disarm Iraq? Allies on both sides of the Atlantic should take a step back and tone down the rhetoric.
	Does the Minister agree that it is rather contradictory of the French to block planning on the ground that it will endorse war, while at the same time dispatching the Charles de Gaulle to the east of the Mediterranean? Does he also agree that if Turkey requests protection under article 4, it should be granted? France, Germany and Belgium have made their point—they should back down now. Does the Minister further agree that our focus should be on disarming Iraq, preferably through peaceful means, and not on squabbling within NATO? The allies have disagreed before, and no doubt they will disagree again. If Britain has a pivotal role to play, as the Prime Minister claims, now is the time to play it.

Adam Ingram: Let me disagree with the hon. Gentleman's saying that the case has not been made. I do not think that he has been listening to what Hans Blix reported to the United Nations, or to the questions that he then raised, which still need to be answered. However, if the hon. Gentleman is still not convinced, he should wait until 14 February, when the final report is made; he should not close his mind now and make a prejudgment. This has been a balanced process.
	I shared a platform with the hon. Gentleman not that long ago, when he made the bold statement that the Liberal Democrats would tell this Government that they should not be dictated to by the United Nations. I do not know exactly what he meant by that—perhaps he will have the opportunity to clarify his position during another debate. I know that his party is split between those who are anti-war, who will be marching this weekend, and those who are saying, "Let's not march." So they are all over the place on this issue, including the very leadership of the party. He made a typical Liberal Democrat response—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The House is far too noisy. I point out that there was a great deal of keenness yesterday to get an urgent question. That request was put and, obviously, granted. I ask only that the Minister be allowed to respond. Also, when further questions are asked, they should be very brief.

Adam Ingram: The hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Keetch) said that the fault for the crisis lay with both sides. I do not accept that at all. Indeed, I see no question of fault in this matter. What I see is argumentation as the different countries in NATO try to articulate their position. The Government's position is clear: we stand with 16 of the 19 NATO members in moving towards providing the very thing that the hon. Gentleman said that he wanted, in the final part of his question.
	This is about solidarity with Turkey and about defending a NATO member. It is not about NATO involvement in any operations against Iraq. The proposals to the NAC amount to prudent planning for defence and deterrence in relation to one ally, Turkey. They are consistent with NATO responsibilities and obligations. They do not imply any automaticity of NATO actions or deployments. We are obviously disappointed that three allies broke silence about what we believed were sensible proposals put forward by NATO Secretary-General Lord Robertson. The lack of consensus is to do with timing, not substance. The large majority of allies believe that prudent planning should begin now.
	Those discussions continue. The hon. Member for Hereford has used rhetoric and bluster to try to allocate fault and say that one nation is worse than another. That is no way for allies to go forward. The hon. Gentleman asks that the rhetoric be toned down, but he exacerbates it with his bluster.

Derek Foster: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, although this is a great crisis in NATO, it is more a sad comment on the parlous state of a once-great party? The Conservative Opposition have turned the crisis into an excuse for slagging off the French and the EU. Will not that seriously undermine the prospects for getting a second resolution in the UN, and a peaceful resolution of the Iraq crisis?

Adam Ingram: My right hon. Friend makes the important point at the end of his question. The aim is to resolve the situation in Iraq. All of us wish that that can be done by peaceful means, but only Saddam Hussein can deliver the peaceful route. He can do that by delivering on what the UN has said in resolution after resolution. I am sure that, if we get a second resolution—although I repeat that it will be the 18th resolution on this matter—all allies will respond to the will of the UN, as set out in that determination. That is what we, collectively, must work to achieve.
	I do not believe that this is a great crisis for NATO, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Foster) suggested at the beginning of his question. Those who study the history of the organisation will know that it has been at crisis' door before. Problems tend to get resolved, as all the allies share the same objectives—to defend borders and provide security, as well as to ensure peace and stability throughout the world.

Peter Lilley: I am one of those Opposition Members who are predisposed to support the Government on matters of national security. We have urged those of our constituents who have found the case less than compelling to trust the Prime Minister, on the ground that he must have intelligence information not available to us. Does the Minister realise that the publication of a document suggesting that the Government had so little information that they had to pad more than 50 per cent. of the document with material culled from the internet undermines the support that we have given, betrays Labour Back Benchers, and embarrasses those allies that rested their defence in the UN on that document? Who accepts responsibility for publishing the document? Have they resigned?

Adam Ingram: I do not know whether anyone has resigned yet, but I am sure that, if that were to happen in the future, there would be great excitement among Labour Back-Bench Members about a possible reshuffle. I am grateful for the support of the right hon. Gentleman, and of those hon. Members who have looked at the facts of the situation, at the barbarity of Saddam Hussein's regime, and at the way he has consistently refused to accept the will of the international community. The right hon. Gentleman should think about what I said earlier in response to the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin)—that the dossier was based on three significant facts. The right hon. Gentleman should go forward consistently with those messages. In that way, I am sure that he will continue to build support in his constituency for what we believe to be right.

Jeremy Corbyn: Does not the Minister accept that the stance taken by the French and some other countries in this time of crisis reflects a desire for peace rather than war? Is not it time that the Government reflected on the feeling, around the world and in this country, that George Bush is leading us by the nose into a war that is neither necessary nor wanted by anyone, and which will result in an awful lot of deaths of innocent people? Is not it time to stop, reflect—and, possibly, to turn around for once?

Adam Ingram: I do not accept the premise of that question. All countries in the UN, and certainly the members of the Security Council, are committed to peace and not war. That is certainly true of those countries that may find themselves engaged in the conflict. Everything that this country has done with its allies has been aimed at finding a peaceful solution. I should respect my hon. Friend more if, in his question, he had condemned Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi regime. I heard nothing from him about that. We get an anti-American rant all the time, from people who forget that the matter is about the will of the UN. I disagree with my hon. Friend's premise, but I join him in wanting peace. He should come over to our side and help to show a unity of purpose among democratic countries. In that way, that tyrant and dictator can be thrown out.

John Gummer: Does the Minister accept, on reflection, that the Government are not convincing large numbers of people? Does it not therefore behove the Government to show that they are open in these matters? Would not it have been better if the Secretary of State for Defence had come to the House of his own volition yesterday and made the statement that the Minister has now made? Would it not have been better if someone had explained to the House before about what has come to be called the "dodgy" document? Would it not be better now if the House were to have a proper debate of this matter, on a substantive motion, so that the public could be reassured? The Minister must understand that many of us would like to say, "Trust the Prime Minister," but that we are unable to do so, given the evidence that is before us. Will he accept that this is a serious crisis, in this country as well as everywhere else?

Adam Ingram: I do not think that the Government have said anything to indicate that we are not aware of the significant amount of doubt in people's minds, both in Britain and internationally. That doubt is evident in the US and every European country, and in other countries too. We have to accept that. As to openness, we have lost count of the number of statements made and of the number of the debates held on the matter. The arguments have been given proper ventilation. I remind the right hon. Gentleman that the matter will be determined not in the House, but in the UN. To my mind, and I suspect that the right hon. Gentleman agrees, Secretary Powell made a powerful and convincing case for the current position in Iraq, based on the inspectors' analysis. Another report will be made on 14 February. The strength and quality of the arguments in that report will be what convinces people in this country, across Europe and in the US. When that is explained, we have to ensure that we stand behind the UN when and if it determines through a second resolution that further action is required, if Saddam Hussein, at that stage, is still not complying with the will of the UN. It has to be determined at the bar of that house as well as at the Bar of this House.

Glenda Jackson: Is it not the case that the Government have markedly failed to convince the British people, most centrally because people have lost trust in that Government? It was not the dossier that my constituents found dodgy but the Government's attempt to present it as exclusively the work of British intelligence agencies and as containing up-to-date material. My constituents are also concerned that the Prime Minister gave a clear commitment that a decision on whether to deploy British troops would be for our Government, our House of Commons and our people—a commitment that his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence completely overturned last Thursday, using the somewhat lame argument of security. Surely the Government must understand that, if the people of this country are to be convinced, far from setting themselves up against the proposals that have been made by France, Germany and, yes, plucky little Belgium, and if the Prime Minister is determined to go down—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I asked for brief questions, not three questions.

Adam Ingram: In my earlier answer, I tried to deal with the way in which we are taking forward the debate on whether we had trust. We have to make the arguments and win them. That is clearly the case for any matter of great importance. I recall, however, some of the lurid language that was used in the House—mainly by my hon. Friends—when we debated Afghanistan. They asked what would happen if there were bombing attacks on Afghanistan and said that if we put troops into the country the whole Islamic world would go up in flames and we would be faced with a cataclysmic response such as we had never seen before. They were wrong then and I ask them to reflect on that this time.
	I note that my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Glenda Jackson) spoke about trust in "that" Government. I remind her that the Government are her Government. She stood on that manifesto and I hope that she can find trust both in the Prime Minister and in the Ministers who are trying to take forward some difficult decisions on behalf of the party to which I am proud to belong and to which I hope she, too, remains proud to belong—

Glenda Jackson: I am not.

Hon. Members: Oh!

Adam Ingram: On the question of commitment and the deployment of our troops and resources, that rests with the Government and with this country and, ultimately, with the House of Commons.

Michael Portillo: I draw attention to a registered interest.
	Does the Minister agree that the action that has been taken by France, Belgium and Germany is a severe blow to the alliance? Does he not recognise that that display of disunity within the alliance actually makes it less likely that this matter can be resolved peacefully? Will he confirm that in Kosovo and in Bosnia Europe was unable to settle matters and had to call upon NATO to do so? Does he, therefore, agree that the result of this action is more likely to damage Europe than the United States? Finally, is it not naive of the Minister not to admit that a longstanding French objective has been to achieve defence arrangements for Europe that do not involve America?

Adam Ingram: The right hon. Gentleman accuses me of being naive, but I do not think that I was asked a question on that point, so it is not a matter of refusing to admit to anything. We can all have a view on the geopolitical stance of our allies and neighbours, and every country comes to its conclusion in a different way. That is what makes the strength of the alliance; we can hold and articulate different points of view and find a way forward. I think I have already replied on the way forward for the European Union, the European security and defence policy and NATO—they are complementary and NATO remains a cornerstone of our security policy.
	I do not accept that this situation is a severe blow, because it depends on how one defines "severe"—[Hon. Members: "Oh."] Well, Lord Robertson may use a different definition from the right hon. Gentleman's. Lord Robertson has said that, yes, there are difficulties. However, consultations are going on and there will be another discussion at 16.30 and there may be further discussions. What are those discussions about? Reaching consensus. Let us wait and see the end of the process and not jump in halfway through, as the right hon. Gentleman's party has done.

Donald Anderson: Would my right hon. Friend confirm that the fundamental purpose of NATO is to provide mutual self-defence for its members—one for all and all for one? To deny a loyal ally—Turkey—that defence when it is needed undermines the very purpose of the alliance. If that door is blocked by certain countries, will my right hon. Friend confirm that we will ensure, in co-operation with the United States and the Netherlands, that our ally, Turkey, receives that help in terms of Patriots, AWACS, aircraft and planning? Will my right hon. Friend also give the Government's position on Monday's proposed EU conference on Iraq? Is it not true that, at this stage, that can only further illustrate the disunity in the European Union and cast doubts on the possibility of a common foreign and security policy?

Adam Ingram: With respect to my right hon. Friend, may I ask him to put some of those questions to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office? They do not relate specifically to what is happening in NATO and the discussions that are taking place.
	I accept that there are linkages, but the way forward will be progressive. There is potential for damage at the moment, but any breaches that arise will be healed. That is the history of NATO and the same will apply—if it does not already—in any ESDP or in the relationships between EU countries.
	The role of NATO is about mutual self-defence. I have set out exactly what is happening. If Turkey comes under attack or is threatened by attack, the countries that are currently seeking a different approach— France, Germany and Belgium—have made it clear that they will stand 100 per cent. by their commitment to NATO. There is no question about that. Let us put the matter in its true context.

Francis Maude: Is not the point that Turkey needs protection before it comes under immediate threat? I strongly support what the right hon. Member for Swansea, East (Donald Anderson) said: Britain should be prepared to come Turkey's aid even before there is a NATO resolution.
	On the dossier, which the Minister has accepted was unfortunately misrepresented, why cannot he just say sorry?

Adam Ingram: Well, the right hon. Gentleman—[Interruption.] I am a bit perplexed as to why we are talking about the dossier when the question was about NATO and the current situation that some people are calling a crisis. However, I understand that the linkages can be made, that the matter is for discussion and that as I am the first relevant Minister to come to the Dispatch Box, I am being asked all these questions about it. I answered in depth on the Government's approach to the dossier. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to look again at the facts in the dossier; if he then disagrees with the dossier, he can call it anything that he wishes.
	The right hon. Gentleman asked about whether Turkey needed support now. Perhaps I have not been clear enough and he has not understood the Government's position. The answer is yes, but as I have said, 15 out of the 19 countries also support that decision. We are clear about what we want from the NAC.

Stuart Bell: May I ask the Minister not to cease repeating the fact that 16 nation states in the NATO Assembly support the resolutions and upholding the constitution? Will he repeat that Turkey's request under article 4 is before NATO today? It is very important to use tact and diplomacy at this time. Is it not a fact that the 18th resolution will enable every nation state in the Security Council to decide whether it wishes to uphold resolution 1441 and the charter of the United Nations and to render a signal service to the international community in relation to Saddam Hussein?

Adam Ingram: I agree entirely with the three points that my hon. Friend makes, and I repeat that 16 out of 19 states wish to comply with his request. That is a significant figure which all of us should remember.
	On my hon. Friend's point about the need for diplomacy, my opening response and, I hope, all my answers have indicated that that process is currently under way in the North Atlantic Council. Of course our ambassador to NATO will be working with those allies who are on side and those with whom we may have a disagreement to find a resolution. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for picking up the fact that this is the 18th resolution, not the second resolution. We have got to ensure that Saddam Hussein and his regime comply wholeheartedly, without question, with the will of the international community. That way lies peace.

Patrick Cormack: Will the Minister ask the wholly admirable Lord Robertson, who is doing such a splendid job, gently to remind the Germans, French and Belgians of just what they owe to the United States, this country and the collective security that NATO has provided?

Adam Ingram: All the nations attended the Munich conference, and those points were made. There was no question at all in the minds of the three countries to which the hon. Gentleman refers but that they remember all too graphically what we went through in the middle of the last century and what spawned NATO, as well as the purpose of NATO and why it has to remain the cornerstone of our collective security; but I will certainly pass on his comments to my noble Friend Lord Robertson.

Tony Banks: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is hardly helpful to restoring NATO unity for US politicians and members of the US Administration to make insulting remarks about our close allies—the French and the Germans?

Adam Ingram: I will certainly draw my hon. Friend's remarks to the attention of my US friends, some of whom are US politicians, but it is not surprising that people descend to name calling at a time of what some would call crisis. It is right to say that we have got to take the heat out of all this. Let us get into the meeting and find a resolution to the current difficulties.

Peter Bottomley: Will the Minister tell the French that the way the French ambassador in Washington, who was president of the Security Council the day after the events of 11 September, explained the need for collective action in dealing with Saddam Hussein and the horrors that he has visited on his own people and his neighbours was very convincing? I hope that the meeting this afternoon will lead to an overcoming of the difficulties.
	Does the Minister agree with me and, I hope, the British people in general that the best way to stand with the people of Iraq, their neighbours and Turkey is for us to go on standing with the United States?

Adam Ingram: I do not know whether I will get the chance to say anything to the French President, but again, I am sure that those from that country who study the debates in this House will ensure that the hon. Gentleman's comments are reflected through their diplomatic channels to their Government. There is no question at all but that all the countries, including the one he mentions, are resolute in their determination to ensure that Saddam Hussein complies with the wish of the United Nations. The debate is about the route to that, wherein lie some of the differences.
	On seeking the resolution to support Turkey, if there were an ultimate threat to or an attack on Turkey, the three countries to which reference has been made would not say, "No, we will not stand by NATO." They have consistently said that they will do so. So this is more about timing than substance. I am sure that diplomacy will prevail, and we have to await the outcome of that diplomacy.

Ross Cranston: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is wrong to over-dramatise this? Article 4 of the treaty imposes an obligation to consult. That has to be done in good faith. Certainly, since the 1950s, an obligation of solidarity has grown up in practice, but this is not an unprecedented crisis; it is nothing like a breach of the treaty and NATO is certainly not crumbling.

Adam Ingram: In the interests of brevity, I agree entirely with everything that my hon. and learned Friend has said.

Ian Taylor: Does the Minister understand that some people in this country admire what the French are doing to hold us back from over-precipitate action? Some of the damage to NATO has been caused by our American friends, not at least in the disdainful way they treated the triggering of article 5 just after the events of 11 September and in the way that, over the past few days, Donald Rumsfeld has been virtually pre-empting Hans Blix's statement, which will come on Friday and which will in itself determine whether the United Nations believes that there should be war. I hope that he will convey that to President Bush, because we must reconcile the damaging threat to NATO's credibility, but that will not happen just by putting pressure on France.

Adam Ingram: Of course the hon. Gentleman has a right to respect any country that he wishes and to criticise any other country. That does not happen in Iraq, and I know that he would stand four square behind what we are seeking to do to disarm Saddam Hussein and to bring stability and, I hope, peace to that country and that troubled region. I do not accept what he says about the United States pre-empting the United Nations. The US is setting out its case. That is part of open diplomacy. We are asked for our views because we are a democracy. Does the hon. Gentleman expect Secretary Rumsfeld to say, "I have nothing to say until 14 February"? That would be a ridiculous position to adopt.

Malcolm Savidge: Having regard to the Prime Minister's repeated promises to treat war as a last resort and to the opinion poll in The Times today, showing that 86 per cent. of the British people believe that inspections should be given more time, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether serious consideration can be given to the proposals from our German, French and Russian allies or to any alternative option to allow more time to try to disarm Iraq peacefully?

Adam Ingram: We have made it clear that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has repeatedly promised that that war must be the last resort. I hope that my hon. Friend takes that as a sincere and total commitment by the Prime Minister, the Government and every Minister who has responsibility in this area. I have said in response to earlier questions that peace, not the alternative, is a route that we want, but we cannot deliver that alone; only Saddam Hussein can do so. How can he do so? By complying with the wish of the UN.
	My hon. Friend has consistently argued that we should recognise the will and wishes of the UN. We now have resolution 1441. I ask him to read it again and to realise that very clear commitments are laid down in that resolution. He now argues for more time and more inspectors, but how many more? How much more time does he want, and whom will that satisfy? It will satisfy Saddam Hussein, and it will continue his tyranny over the people of Iraq.

Edward Leigh: Does the Minister acknowledge the primacy of the House of Commons' right to be kept informed and to take decisions on such matters? Does he acknowledge that he has been unable or unwilling, perhaps for very good reasons, to intimate to the House in detail during the statement what the Secretary of State is doing and saying at this moment to resolve this crisis? Will he give an undertaking now that, when the Secretary of State returns, he will come to the House to make a full statement on his meeting?

Adam Ingram: The hon. Gentleman misunderstands what I said. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is not going to Brussels to involve himself in the NAC; he is going to meet senior—[Interruption.] Well, he will go a bit beyond that, but he will certainly meet Secretary Rumsfeld and others to consider—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Let the Minister answer.

Adam Ingram: I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker. I am trying to get to the nub of the question, in case there is any doubt in the mind of the hon. Gentleman. I accept the primacy of the House of Commons, as do the Government, and that is why we have had so many statements. I remind the House that we had a substantive vote on 25 November, and we will have another if we have to come to the ultimate decision that we do not want to reach.

Andrew MacKinlay: May I associate myself with the comments by my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman)? I am one of the people who have put their trust in the Government, but I wish to address the question of the dossier. It must have been printed on rice paper and all been eaten, because no copies are available in the Vote Office. The Minister of State mentioned the facts, but part one of the dossier implies that Hans Blix and the other inspectors have been intimidated by the Iraqis. Where does that evidence come from? Surely if there was any sense of intimidation on the narrow issue of the inspections, Hans Blix would not be there. It must have been made up.

Adam Ingram: That is a question of interpretation. I welcome the strong position that my hon. Friend has taken, and the resolute way in which he has continued to pursue what he believes to be right. He also constantly questions the basis on which he has come to his conclusions, while keeping in mind the centrality of what we seek to do. If he thinks that the inspectors have not been frustrated, I ask him to read again what Hans Blix reported to the United Nations. It is a central feature of what we seek that unrestricted access should be allowed to key people in Iraq, many of whom know where the dangerous weapons—and the means to build more—lie. The inspectors have had a difficult job to do, so let us wait to see what the report says on 14 February.

Hywel Williams: Will the Minister dissociate himself from the intemperate remarks on the "Today" programme by Washington-based hawks, in which they rubbished the efforts of France, Belgium and Germany in the attempts to disarm Iraq? Will he assure the House that the Government have given serious consideration to those countries' proposals?

Adam Ingram: I speak for myself, not for those whom the hon. Gentleman calls hawks. I have set out the Government's position and I hope that the hon. Member agrees with us on the need to stand by the United Nations. I am glad to see that he nods at that, because that is progress. Will he also stand by the 18th resolution, if it means that Saddam Hussein has not complied with the will of the international community? If war is inevitable, will he support that position? I do not see him nodding to that.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We must move on.

Points of Order

Edward Leigh: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. We have just had a debate for the best part of an hour on the need for the House of Commons to be kept informed. By way of written answer, the Government today made an important announcement on asylum centres, in which they said that they will not proceed with the asylum centre in Hemswell in my constituency. As a Member of Parliament, you will appreciate that such issues are of enormous importance locally. Would not it have been polite of the Minister to have rung me up or to have tried to keep me informed in some other way through my office here, instead of informing my local press and sending a fax to some distant constituency office? Can you encourage Ministers who have such an announcement to make to come and speak openly to the House, or at least ring up the Members of Parliament concerned?

Mr. Speaker: I hope that the Minister concerned will have heard what the hon. Gentleman has had to say.

Jeremy Corbyn: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The House is grateful to you for allowing questions on the urgent question for almost an hour. That is much appreciated. You will be aware that events are moving very fast, and the British Government are now apparently drafting a resolution to the UN in support of the United States. Next week we will be in recess, but we could be at war by then. In these difficult times, what arrangements can be made for the House to be recalled or for an urgent debate and vote to take place before the recess?

Mr. Speaker: The recall of Parliament during a recess is not a matter for me. It is for the Prime Minister, and the hon. Gentleman should approach him on the matter. I can understand the concern of the House, but I have been assured by the Government business managers that the Foreign Secretary will make a statement on Thursday, which will provide an opportunity for hon. Members to make their case. Those who did not catch my eye today will be top of the queue on Thursday.

Andrew MacKay: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am grateful for that assurance, but—on a separate point of order—can you confirm that the Secretary of State for Defence has not requested leave to make a statement yesterday or today? We had an opportunity to put questions today only because my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) tabled a question that you deemed urgent. Was it not totally incorrect of the Minister of State to suggest that he came here willingly to answer questions today? He came here only because you rightly deemed that the question was urgent and forced him to come here.

Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman should not draw me into the argument.

Human Fertilisation and Embryology Amendment

David Stewart: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend and extend certain enactments regulating the treatment of women undergoing IVF procedures and to extend the range of information and counselling provided by health authorities.
	My constituent, Margaret Grant, is a highlander. She was born in Wick and moved to Inverness, in my constituency, to live and work. She married in 1984, but she was unable to have children naturally. In 1995, she started in vitro fertilisation treatment on the NHS in Aberdeen Royal hospital. Following a local press campaign, eggs were donated by another woman and fertilised by her husband. The five embryos were cryo-preserved and placed in storage.
	Unfortunately, Mr. and Mrs. Grant separated at Christmas in 1998, and divorce proceedings were initiated. Shortly after that, Mr. Grant insisted that the embryos be destroyed, as was his right under the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990. The hospital contacted the appropriate authority, which confirmed that my constituent had no veto over the destruction of the embryos as they did not come from her eggs. Mr. Grant underwent counselling and insisted that his estranged wife should not be informed about the destruction of the embryos. IVF treatment is started as a partnership. Why should it be ended as a sole trader?
	Almost a year later, in February 2001, Mrs. Grant found out that the five embryos had been destroyed. I shall quote her description of how she felt:
	"When I heard the news I was absolutely devastated. I thought they were still there for me. It came totally out of the blue. I just went hysterical, absolutely hysterical. I could not speak about what he had done. It was my only chance of having a family, my one and only chance, snatched away from me in the blink of an eye—just like that, gone! I could not calm down. I just was not making sense of what happened. It's hard to describe what it was like. It was like losing a child and having real grief for a child that you could not have. Not a day goes by when I do not think about it. I still grieve for the child I cannot have. It is like a physical pain in the pit of your stomach.
	It is too late for me but I will have some kind of peace of mind and closure if I know that I have helped other childless couples not having to go through this hell that I have been through."
	In vitro fertilisation is a difficult issue that raises fundamental moral and religious issues. That is apparent in the Hansard reports of the debates on the 1990 Act. I understand the sensitivities surrounding the issue, and it is not my intention to reopen that debate today in a 10-minute speech. I want to ensure that no other woman in Britain undergoing IVF treatment suffers the same trauma, anxiety and depression as my constituent.
	How can that be done? Relatively simply, I want to insert a new one-line clause in the 1990 Act, requiring that women undergoing IVF who have had eggs donated be informed prior to the destruction of embryos, so that guidance, counselling and advice can be afforded. I want to make it clear that I am not suggesting any change in the current law, whereby the two providers of the gametes involved—the woman who provided the eggs, and the man who provided the fertilisation—will need to give effective consent for the embryos to remain in storage. There will, of course, be no extra cost to the Exchequer, as the number of women involved in IVF in these circumstances is low, and counselling will be provided from existing resources. I also understand that the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority may be changing its code of practice to reflect this proposal later in the year.
	I would like to thank the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Salford (Ms Blears), for her positive and constructive meeting with me about these proposals. I know that she supports the changes in the code, but has genuine concerns about opening up the Act as a whole. Even at this late stage, however, perhaps a Pauline conversion on the road to Damascus would be welcome. I commend this Bill to the House. Let us ensure that no more women in this country suffer the devastation, loss and pain experienced by my constituent
	Question put and agreed to.
	Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. David Stewart, Mr. Alistair Carmichael, Julia Drown, Mr. George Foulkes, Mr. James Gray, Lady Hermon, Glenda Jackson, Ms Oona King, Miss Julie Kirkbride, Mr. Andrew Mitchell, Mrs. Eleanor Laing and Dr. Rudi Vis.

Human Fertilisation and Embryology Amendment Bill

Mr. David Stewart accordingly presented a Bill to amend and extend certain enactments regulating the treatment of women undergoing IVF procedures and to extend the range of information and counselling provided by health authorities: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 28 February, and to be printed [Bill 56].

Orders of the Day

National Minimum Wage (Enforcement Notices) Bill [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

Alan Johnson: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
	The minimum wage is now firmly established as a feature of the UK labour market and widely recognised as an outstanding success. Since its introduction in 1999, more than 1 million people have benefited from increased pay and we have tackled the appalling situation whereby poverty wages of £2 per hour or less were being paid. That has been achieved without a significant adverse impact on business, and the most recent Low Pay Commission report said that the vast majority of employers were complying with the minimum wage and that the enforcement system was working well.
	When the Government introduced the national minimum wage in 1998, we had to create an enforcement system that was fair and effective, without putting unnecessary burdens on business. We did not want workers to have to take action on their own behalf against employers, although that remains an option for them if they wish. Low-paid workers are a vulnerable group and are sometimes unable or unwilling to take action on their own behalf. Fear and intimidation can also deter people from making a complaint.
	For that reason, we created a network of 12 enforcement teams across the United Kingdom, operated by the Inland Revenue. Since April 1999, those teams have completed more than 21,000 case investigations and identified more than £12 million of minimum wage arrears. I should perhaps add at this point that the minimum wage legislation and this Bill cover both the national minimum wage and the agricultural minimum wage. Since 1999, minimum wage officers from both the Inland Revenue and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs have been issuing enforcement notices to require employers either to pay the minimum wage in future or make good arrears of the minimum wage, or both.
	For three years, therefore, our officers have issued those notices on behalf of current workers, who are still working for the employer in question, and former workers, who have left the employer. In August last year, however, the Employment Appeal Tribunal ruled in the case of Inland Revenue v. Bebb Travel plc that officers could only issue enforcement notices requiring the employer to pay the minimum wage in respect of current and future pay periods or in respect of current, future and past pay periods. That ruling means that enforcement officers cannot at present issue notices for past periods alone, and, therefore, that we cannot now issue notices to recover arrears due to former workers.
	The Government are determined to restore the position to what we believed it to be before the Bebb decision, for two reasons. First, former workers are entitled to the minimum wage in the same way as current ones. If someone was not paid the minimum wage for some work that they did, for example, over the Christmas period, we believe that the employer should be required to make good the shortfall, regardless of whether the person concerned is still in their employment.
	While former workers can take independent action against their employer, that is not as satisfactory as action by our officers for several reasons. The worker may need a reference from their former employer, or may believe that their chances of success against the employer are limited. As I mentioned earlier, low-paid workers are vulnerable and sometimes unable or unwilling to take action on their own behalf.

Brian H Donohoe: My hon. Friend may not be aware that I had a case, which was properly represented by my union, the Transport and General Workers Union, of a young girl who was not being paid the minimum wage. The tribunal upheld the case six months ago, and the girl is still waiting for compensation. What will the new measure do for her?

Alan Johnson: If she is a former employee who claimed arrears since August 2002, the enforcement officers would not be able to act on her behalf. Her trade union would be able to represent her at an employment tribunal—that is unaffected. The issue is whether enforcement officers can act for former employees to claim arrears. That is the focal point of this particular amendment to the legislation.

John Bercow: The Minister will be aware that my noble Friend Baroness Miller of Hendon, on behalf of the Conservative Opposition, supported this thoroughly sensible Bill in the other place, and I am glad that the Opposition are doing so today. Will the Minister reflect on the point that I made in moving an amendment to the National Minimum Wage Bill in 1998 that, when employees are deprived by cowboy or skinflint employers of their legitimate entitlement to be paid the minimum wage, and are obliged subsequently to take steps to recover it, a powerful moral case exists for them to be paid interest on top of the wage that they should have received?

Alan Johnson: The hon. Gentleman was a veteran of the National Minimum Wage Bill. As I recall, his mum advised him to support it; he ignored her advice, but now wishes that he had not. He raises an interesting point, on which, although it is not the specific focus of this legislation, I will reflect.
	I was explaining why the situation whereby enforcement officers are not entitled to claim in respect of former workers is unsatisfactory. I noted that the worker may need a reference from their former employer or believe that their chances of success against the employer are limited. That is why we believe that former workers should enjoy the protection of Revenue officers—or DEFRA officers, if the agricultural minimum wage is at issue—in the same way as current workers.
	It could also be argued—this is a very important point—that if we do not amend the Bill in this way today, we would create an incentive for unscrupulous employers to dismiss workers as soon as they knew that they were being investigated to escape the arrears of minimum wage payments. That would obviously be undesirable.
	The second reason for restoring the previous position is that former workers tend to be much more willing to complain to the minimum wage helplines, which then kick-start the enforcement system. Current workers tend not to complain, for obvious reasons. When our officers follow up the complaints of former workers, they often discover that the minimum wage is being withheld not only from former workers but from current workers. We must not fall into a position where former workers think that we can do nothing for them and therefore stop making complaints. Such complaints can lead to benefit for everyone.
	I hope that I have explained clearly why the Bill is needed. This is not a party political Bill and—as the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) said—it enjoyed support from both sides in another place. It is a small but important Bill that deals with complex issues that I will briefly summarise.
	The Bill proposes to insert a new subsection (2A) after section 19(2) of the National Minimum Wage Act 1998. According to the decision of the Employment Appeal Tribunal, the existing subsections (1) and (2) of section 19 allow an enforcement officer to issue a notice only in respect of current and future pay periods or in respect of current, future and past pay periods together. The proposed subsection (2A) allows an enforcement officer to issue a notice on an employer to require him to pay minimum wage arrears to a worker or workers who have, at any time, qualified for the minimum wage. The notice will not have to cover future pay periods, so, if required, officers will be able to issue notices that cover minimum wage arrears for former workers. The proposed subsection will restore the position that the Government believed existed before the recent tribunal ruling.
	Subsection (2A) has been drafted deliberately to allow enforcement officers to issue notices in respect of pay reference periods that ended before or after this Bill comes into force. I will say a few words about why that has been done. As matters stand, our officers have not been able to issue any notices on behalf of former workers since August 2002. That was a result of the Bebb Travel Employment Appeal Tribunal decision. Some workers may have taken independent action against their employers, but, although we do not have precise figures, I suspect that many will not have. Unless we allow officers to issue notices covering pay periods before the Bill comes into force, we will not be able to recover, on behalf of former workers, minimum wage arrears that might have arisen in the past.
	The vital point to stress is that subsection (2A) will not change anyone's existing entitlement to the minimum wage but merely create a new means of enforcing existing rights to help former workers to recover their proper entitlement. We have approached the Attorney-General on this point and he has advised us that he is content for the subsection to apply in that way.
	The proposed subsection (2B) will limit the period that an enforcement notice may cover. Any period that is
	"more than 6 years before the date on which the notice is served"
	will not be covered. We expect few cases to go back for more than three years. That is because the minimum wage regulations require employers to keep pay records for only three years. We therefore expect it to be difficult for the Inland Revenue to pursue cases that go back further, unless there is no dispute about the hours worked, or the worker holds clear evidence, such as payslips.

John Bercow: I understand the rationale behind proposed subsection (2B), but may I again ask the Minister about underpayment? He offered a bird's-eye view of underpayment, but will he help us further by telling us what proportion of the total amount of underpayment, or of the total number of underpayment cases, is represented by existing employees—who may have been given reassurances about their current and future pay entitlements, but not yet have been reimbursed for their previous entitlement? In other words, what is the extent of past underpayment for existing employees?

Alan Johnson: If I understand the hon. Gentleman correctly, he is asking about employees who have not left their employer, and is wondering how many of them are claiming arrears, in relation to the number of previous employees who are claiming arrears.

John Bercow: indicated assent.

Alan Johnson: I do not have precise figures. Of cases that are reported to the Revenue and DEFRA for action by our enforcement officers, we understand that the majority, perhaps the vast majority, are from previous employees—that is, employees who have left the work place. For various reasons, previous employees feel safer and more relaxed in pursuing claims. As I said earlier, when such claims are pursued, we often find that existing employees are not being paid the minimum wage. That is an important reason for introducing this Bill.

Bill Tynan: If the changes proposed in the Bill are accepted, enforcement officers will be able to pursue the past claims of individual employees. Would employees who had left employment still be able to pursue their claims through an industrial tribunal, or would the three-month period kick in, which would mean that they would have to use enforcement officers?

Alan Johnson: My hon. Friend asks an important question. Since August 2002, when the Bebb Travel Employment Appeal Tribunal decision prevented enforcement officers from acting on behalf of former employees, those former employees have still been able to pursue their cases themselves. The three-month rule is very interesting. The reason why most enforcement orders go through the county courts—where the six-year limit that I mentioned earlier already applies—is that they are not governed by the three-month rule. That is why the vast majority of enforcement cases and of individuals pursuing cases on their own behalf go to a county court rather than an employment tribunal. The number of cases going to employment tribunals is tiny compared with the thousands of cases that enforcement officers take through the county courts.

Brian H Donohoe: What will happen in Scotland, where we do not have county courts? Would cases go to the sheriff courts?

Alan Johnson: I am not an expert on the Scottish legal system, but cases would go to whatever the equivalent of the county court is.
	Proposed subsection (2B) is very important. I was explaining that we expect few cases to go back further than three years, primarily because the National Minimum Wage Act 1998 requires employers to keep records for only three years. In addition, the average minimum wage case goes back less than a year, and the Limitation Act 1980 means that the vast majority of cases that go through the county courts can go back only six years. Enforcement officers can also take cases to employment tribunals. Although the tribunals could allow enforcement officers to claim for underpayments of the minimum wage going back more than six years, that jurisdiction is rarely used. That is because—as my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, South (Mr. Tynan) suggested—claims in employment tribunals must be made three months from the date of the last underpayment of the national minimum wage.

Annabelle Ewing: Is the Minister aware that the Limitation Act 1980 does not apply in Scotland? Has the Minister had discussions with Scottish Executive Ministers about that potential inconsistency? Our general prescriptive period for civil recovery is five years.

Alan Johnson: I have indeed had discussions with Scottish Executive Ministers and I will come to that when I talk about agricultural wages. I did not have an answer to the question about county courts and their Scottish equivalents, but I will do by the time I reply to this debate.

John Robertson: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is a pleasure to see the nationalists turn up for a debate on the minimum wage? When the previous legislation went through the House, they could not be bothered to get out of their beds.

Alan Johnson: I shall skate gently over that intervention.
	On the six-year limitation, let me stress that we do not propose to limit the existing rights held by individual workers, who can currently take cases that go back more than six years to tribunals. That point is at present irrelevant to the application of the national minimum wage, which was introduced only in April 1999, so six years of arrears have not been built up anywhere. We are not interfering with that individual right of employees. To do so would put workers claiming in respect of underpayments of the minimum wage in a worse position than workers claiming in respect of other contractual underpayments.
	The Government believe that the proposed new subsection (2B) will bring clarity to the situation and ensure that the rights of both the worker and the employer are respected. The subsection was introduced following helpful debate in the other place.

Michael Connarty: On the rights of workers, does my hon. Friend accept that one of the most difficult provisions of the National Minimum Wage Act 1998 to enforce for workers in the service industry relates to the difficulty of obtaining a true valuation of the wage given them from the tips of customers who, like me and my hon. Friend, are generous tippers? Those tips are intended to go into the workers' pockets, but how much is considered to contribute to the minimum wage? How would an enforcement officer settle disputes about the rights of the worker and the rights of the employer?

Alan Johnson: I have never been a generous tipper, but I was generously tipped as a postman at Christmas. I give due thanks to my previous customers.
	The Low Pay Commission has considered this point. The national minimum wage legislation says that tips that are paid in wages from a pool that is intended for all the employees and that go through the proper channels of insurance and so on should be taken into account for the national minimum wage. Individual tips given to a waiter, postman or postwoman are not to be taken into account. The commission keeps such important but esoteric and sensitive questions under constant review, and we expect to receive advice on whether the system is working.
	As I was saying, we believe that proposed subsection (2B) will bring clarity to the situation. It was introduced following helpful debate in the other place and follows the thrust of an Opposition amendment that the Government were happy to accept.
	Clause 2 provides for the Bill to extend to Northern Ireland as well as to the remainder of the United Kingdom. That is the same arrangement as for the 1998 Act. The clause also deals with the enforcement of the agricultural minimum wage in Scotland. Agriculture is a devolved matter in Scotland and Northern Ireland and the agricultural minimum wage has been in place throughout the United Kingdom for more than half a century. Schedule 2 of the 1998 Act made a number of amendments to the Agricultural Wages (Scotland) Act 1949 to incorporate some of the provisions of the national minimum wage into the agricultural minimum wage.
	The Scottish Executive have decided that they intend to lay independent, parallel legislation in the Edinburgh Parliament that is similar to the Bill but that covers just Scottish agriculture. The relevant subsection ensures that the provisions of this Bill will not be carried across into the Agricultural Wages (Scotland) Act 1949. For the sake of total clarity, let me say that this does not affect the existing structure of the national minimum wage or agricultural wages legislation.
	I shall say a few brief words about Northern Ireland. Although agriculture is also a devolved matter in Northern Ireland, the House will be aware that the Stormont Assembly is temporarily suspended. My Department has confirmed with the Northern Ireland Office that it is content for the Bill to cover agriculture in Northern Ireland.
	The Bill will not concern or trouble the vast majority of employers who are already paying the minimum wage. The only people who will be affected by it are the minority of bad employers who do not pay the minimum wage. I feel that it is right and proper that all workers—whether they are current or former workers—should enjoy the protection of our enforcement officers. I commend the Bill to the House.

Henry Bellingham: I am extremely grateful to the Minister for that comprehensive and clear explanation of the Bill. Although it is a small Bill, parts of it are quite complicated. As he clearly explained, the Bill will effectively overturn the Employment Appeal Tribunal decision in the case of the Inland Revenue v. Bebb Travel plc. It will restore the position to what business, the unions and Parliament believed it to be. The Bill will allow employees or enforcement officers to claim for past wages. We obviously support the Bill, which has the backing of the CBI, the TUC and most business organisations.
	I have a number of questions and points to put to the Minister. I refer to the retrospective nature of the Bill, about which there was much debate in the other place. As he explained, under the main 1998 Act, employers can take action on their own account or—this is the more likely route—action is taken on their behalf by departmental enforcement officers from the Inland Revenue or DEFRA. Civil legal action can be pursued in the county courts or in the employment tribunals, using the powers in the Employment Rights Act 1996.
	In practice, virtually all the cases so far have been brought in the county courts, largely because cases in the employment tribunals must be brought within three months of the last underpayment. In the case of the former, the six-year statutory limitation applies but, in the case of the latter, cases could, in theory, have been taken in respect of underpayments going back more than six years. That was the position until my noble Friend Baroness Miller of Hendon tabled an amendment to introduce a six-year time limit for both categories of court. I am pleased that the Minister in the other place tabled a Government amendment restricting the work of Government enforcement officers to a six-year limit.
	In the light of the Government's acceptance of the broad thrust of our amendment in the other place, my next remarks may sound a little churlish. However, as the Minister in the other place pointed out, companies are required to keep records for only three years. Bearing that in mind, should we not be thinking in terms of an overall three-year limit? After all, what would happen if a company does not keep records for more than three years—it has no legal obligation to do so—and, as a consequence, vital information is destroyed? For the sake of argument, let us suppose that the employee who is claiming underpaid wages has kept pay slips and other information. It is easy to envisage a situation in which the company—probably a small business—is seriously disadvantaged and is brought to court. It might have a strong case, but might be unable to produce the documentary evidence because it has quite legally been thrown away.
	Will the Minister comment on whether he thinks that there is a case for having an overall limit of three years? Perhaps we can return to this issue in Committee, especially in the light of the fact that—Lord Sainsbury made much of this in the other place—companies do not have to keep records for more than three years. That may surprise some Members; it certainly surprised me when I first took this particular brief.

Bill Tynan: If the employee could produce documentary proof such as a wage slip that showed that he had been paid below the minimum wage, would the hon. Gentleman still consider having a limit of three years instead of allowing it to remain at six?

Henry Bellingham: We should certainly discuss this point in detail in Committee. I think that I am right in saying—the Minister might clarify this—that the Government amendment tabled in the House of Lords does not restrict the right of the individual employee to go back as far as he likes for cases going to the Employment Appeal Tribunal. The six-year limit applies to Government enforcement officers. I merely flag that up as an anomaly that may lead to conflict, particularly in the small firms sector. We must keep an eye on that—the Opposition are very concerned indeed that we should not overregulate that sector. However, we obviously support the Bill and the minimum wage.

John Bercow: Does my hon. Friend accept that our wise support for the Bill will necessarily entail a future rise in employers' costs, for the simple reason that the logic of a minimum wage is that it will be periodically and affordably increased?

Henry Bellingham: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. We have made it clear that we support the minimum wage in principle, and shall go into the next election campaigning in favour of it. If we return to power, we will look carefully at the levels recommended by the Low Pay Commission and, above all, at the burdens on business. My hon. Friend is right, as our priority in government will be to look at the many other burdens that the present Government have put on business which need to be removed quickly.

Michael Connarty: Could the hon. Gentleman turn his fine mind to the point about records that I made to the Minister? There is a dispute in the service sector about whether someone should give a tip to the person serving them or to the management. How do we reconcile the enforcement process with the constant barrage of complaints that money given to people who are serving ends up as part of their minimum wage, and does not go directly into their pocket?

Henry Bellingham: I accept the hon. Gentleman's point. When we give a tip to someone, whether a taxi driver or a helpful waiter in a restaurant, we expect it to go to the employee. Even if it does not go straight into that person's pocket, we expect it be pooled and given to them later, with no consequences whatever for the minimum wage. If employers are abusing that practice, the Inland Revenue or other enforcement officers may like to look into that. Perhaps the Minister could comment on the problem when he makes his winding-up speech at the end of this short debate.
	Baroness Miller moved, then withdrew, an amendment in the other place that would have brought the Bill into effect immediately, not in two months' time. Lord McIntosh, like the Minister, confirmed that the Inland Revenue believes that well over 250 cases involving former employees are currently on hold. It is only fair that those cases are dealt with as soon as the Bill receives Royal Assent. Two months may not seem long to wait, and Lord McIntosh made it clear that the two-month delay will not affect entitlement, but many low-paid employees have been deprived of their rightful wages. Their cases are outstanding, mainly in the county courts, but some in the Employment Appeal Tribunal. Surely, those cases should be heard immediately, not after a two-month wait.
	We have had a look at what has happened to other measures. The Minister may or may not be aware that quite a few Bills are enforced immediately. The Northern Ireland (Elections) Act 1998 was enforced immediately, as was the Education Act 2002, the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001, the Armed Forces Act 2000, and the Freedom of Information Act 2000. Furthermore, an investigation was carried out in 1979—I know that that is some time ago and that Government practice has changed—by a working party from the Statute Law Society which looked at 105 Acts passed between 1 January 1978 and April 1979, a period of 14 months, to ascertain when they came into force. It found that 41 Acts came into effect on the exact date on which they were passed; 12 Acts came into force on a date specified in the Act; and 14 came into force on the expiry of a two-month period.
	As I pointed out, that investigation was conducted a fair while ago, but I do not believe that there has been a recent appraisal of enforcement. I cannot understand the argument by the Department of Trade and Industry that there must be pressing reasons for a Bill to be passed and enforced immediately. The Attorney-General has apparently advised that there are no pressing reasons for the Bill to be enforced immediately, so two months can elapse. We are going to a lot of effort to pass this small Bill, and a lot of people are waiting for their due entitlement in wages. We should therefore get rid of that two-month delay—as soon as the Bill receives Royal Assent, those cases should be dealt with. The less time that is lost, the better.
	In an earlier intervention, my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) made a point about underpayment. People have been underpaid and deprived of something that is their legal right. I agree with my hon. Friend—there is a strong case on the payment of interest, which the Government could consider. The Minister seemed to show approval when the suggestion was made. Surprisingly, at no stage in the debate on the National Minimum Wage Act 1998 was there any amendment about or discussion of interest being paid.

John Bercow: My hon. Friend's sense of equity and fairness never deserts him. On a point of fact, may I emphasise that such an amendment was tabled. I spoke to it shortly after 5 o'clock one morning.

Henry Bellingham: I humbly accept my hon. Friend's correction. I read in detail the debate on the 1998 Act, but I must have missed that amendment. I apologise to my hon. Friend, who has just made a bid to serve as a Committee member. He will have ample opportunity in Committee to table another amendment, which I very much hope will succeed. Perhaps the Minister will comment on the payment of interest when he winds up.
	The Government made an appeal against the Bebb decision. The Bill has been introduced to obviate the effect of the tribunal's decision, but will the Government pursue their appeal in any event? If so, what is the logic behind that? There was mention of such a course of action in another place, but no satisfactory explanation was given. The Bill will obviously cost a certain amount of public money. We hope that the Bebb case is a unique one-off. The parliamentary draftsman may have examined the 1998 Act with enormous expertise and in great deal, and the relevant parts of the measure were debated here and in another place. However, debate in the Commons was sometimes curtailed, although not as much as debate on Bills is now curtailed, by a timetable motion. I very much hope that the drafting mistake was not the result of lack of scrutiny.
	The 1998 Act was controversial when it was first introduced, but far too often the Government impose a timetable motion on Bills that are not necessarily controversial. In the previous Session, I served on the Committee that considered the Adoption and Children Act 2002, which contains about 120 sections, the overwhelming majority of which are non-controversial. However, a timetable motion was imposed, so about 50 sections were not debated in the House. Much of the measure went to the other place undebated.That is an intolerable and wretched state of affairs. Perhaps a small lesson can be learned. Although the Bebb decision may not have been the result of poor scrutiny in either House but of unfortunate drafting, if more time had been spent going through the 1998 Act section by section and looking at every detail, perhaps such an omission would have come to light.
	Perhaps we should examine the drafting in this and other Bills. For example, the Minister and I know what clause 2(4) means, and he has tried to explain it, but there may be other hon. Members who do not know what it means. It states:
	"But, notwithstanding section 20(2) of the Interpretation Act 1978 (c. 30) (construction of references to other enactments), the reference in section 1 to section 19 of the National Minimum Wage Act 1998 (c. 39) shall be taken not to include a reference to that section as applied by section 3A of the Agricultural Wages (Scotland) Act 1949 (c. 30)."
	The Minister explained succinctly that the amendment made to the National Minimum Wage Act 1998 by clause 1 is not to have effect in the application of section 19 of that Act in relation to the agricultural minimum wage in Scotland. That is simple. Why must the drafting be so convoluted? Why is the clause so complicated, when the guidance in the explanatory notes makes the matter so simple? If we used common sense a little more, we might avoid some of the mistakes that were made in the 1998 Act.

John Bercow: Does my hon. Friend agree that such drafting recalls the wisdom of Churchill's legendary and memorable statement:
	"This is the sort of English up with which I will not put"?

Henry Bellingham: I agree with my hon. Friend. Anyone who doubts that should get a copy of the Bill and read and re-read clause 2(4) until they understand it. It is extremely convoluted and long-winded.
	In conclusion, we support the mini-Bill. We hope that Bebb was a one-off error, but if any Government have to introduce a Bill to correct a drafting error, that means, by definition, that there has been a failure. Such a Bill is not inexpensive. It costs public money, and any unnecessary expenditure of public money is painful, so let us hope that lessons have been learned. I hope that the Minister will respond to the few questions that I put to him.

John Lyons: The Minister and the research paper have both described the purpose of the Bill: to close the loophole that exists. That is to be welcomed. If we do not do so, it will encourage abuse by bad employers. Most fair-minded people, both in and out of Parliament, would agree that the loophole must be closed.
	I believe that the Employment Appeal Tribunal made the wrong decision. The National Minimum Wage Act 1998 never intended to give the tribunal the opportunity to make such a decision. In the case of Inland Revenue v. Bebb Travel plc, I believe that the decision of the EAT breaks the spirit and intention of the 1998 Act. It sticks in my throat to say so, having completed a tax return for the end of January, but on this occasion the Inland Revenue got it exactly right.
	The Act authorises enforcement orders for employees who have left employment. There is no room for debate or discussion of that; it was the purpose and intention of the legislation. The Employment Appeal Tribunal confuses individuals with employers, and that confusion creates tremendous uncertainty in the labour market. The national minimum wage legislation was derided by many in the House, who predicted that it would wreck jobs all over the country and create economic havoc, but it has worked well, as the Minister said in his opening remarks. However, it demands compliance and protection 365 days a year and 24 hours a day. It cannot be used part-time, as the Employment Appeal Tribunal would lead one to conclude.
	Employers who are using the loophole are breaching the minimum wage in a way that no one could have foreseen and no one would support. The Act was framed to assist employees, particularly through the use of enforcement officers. That was an important part of the legislation.
	Employment law is littered with cases of retrospective payment in terms of wages, holidays and bonuses. People leave their employment and have a case for the payment of wages, bonus, holiday pay or even additional holidays. That is bread-and-butter fare for personnel managers throughout the country. It happens daily and such cases are resolved retrospectively. Delays often occur because of failure to agree terms and conditions on a specific date—the anniversary date for employers and employees. That is not unusual, nationally or locally. The anniversary date drifts on for days, weeks and months. In that period, people might decide to leave their employment, but that does not deny them the right to make a claim for the pay increase that might be agreed after they have left, the holidays that might change after they have left, or holiday pay after they have left.

John Robertson: My hon. Friend is very knowledgeable on the subject, which we have looked into in the Scottish Affairs Committee. Does he agree that the case under discussion may be only the tip of the iceberg? It is not unusual for people to leave employment when they are not being paid what they should be paid, but they are too frightened to come forward and allow themselves to be used to test legislation or to help to change the law. The Bill is important for low-paid people and the protection that they need. It is up to us to make sure that it goes forward.

John Lyons: I thank my hon. Friend for raising that important point. He and other colleagues on the Scottish Affairs Committee have looked extensively at compliance, particularly for low-paid workers. I welcome that work and hope it continues.
	As I said, delays beyond anniversary dates is normal fare for trade unions and employers, but it is resolved without difficulty in hundreds of agreements across the UK. Enforcement officers are important for the reason that my hon. Friend suggests. There is fear and intimidation, and enforcement officers are an alternative way of trying to resolve a grievance independently of the employee concerned. I would welcome an increase in enforcement officers.
	As the Minister mentioned, the employee can take a minimum wage case to an employment tribunal or to the county court, and of course enforcement officers can do the same thing. The figures prove conclusively how important enforcement officers, the tribunals and the county courts are: since 1999, £9 million has been raised from failure to pay the minimum wage. That is a substantial sum, particularly for low-paid workers. It means an awful lot to them.

Tony Cunningham: Would you agree, however, that many low-paid workers are not in trade unions, and find it extremely difficult to put a case together and go to the tribunal? Would you not—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is not the first this afternoon to transgress with regard to the form of address. He should remember by now that he should refer to his hon. Friend in the third person.

Tony Cunningham: My apologies, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
	Would not my hon. Friend tell people in that situation that the best way to protect themselves is to join a trade union?

John Lyons: I thank my hon. Friend for raising that point. I always argue that that is the best way for people to ensure the best terms and conditions for themselves and ensure compliance by their employers with the minimum wage.
	I said earlier that the Employment Appeal Tribunal had made a poor decision. I still feel that, having read the decision a number of times. I think that the Government felt that the tribunal had not properly interpreted the legislation. In their evidence to the Low Pay Commission, the Government said:
	"The Government believes that Ministers clearly intended, when introducing the Act, that compliance officers should be able to pursue cases involving workers who are no longer employed by the employer in question. We are determined to help low paid workers and intend to restore the position as soon as possible, so that the Revenue and Agricultural minimum wage compliance officers can once more pursue these cases fully."
	That is an absolutely correct approach to compliance with the national minimum wage.
	In another place my noble Friend Lord Sainsbury said:
	"First, former workers are entitled to the minimum wage in just the same way as current ones. If someone was not paid the minimum wage for, say, some work they did in the summer, then we believe that the employer should be required to make good the shortfall, whether the person is still in their employment or not."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 10 December 2002; Vol. 642, c. 152.]
	Other hon. Members have referred to the fact that in another place Lord Razzall, the Liberal Democrat, and Baroness Miller of Hendon fully supported the changes to the legislation that would guarantee much more protection to employees. That is very important.
	Another point that has been raised is that some workers fear raising the issue of failure to pay the minimum wage, or seem to be in difficulty about how best to raise it. If they are not in a trade union or do not feel comfortable about going to an employment tribunal, they often finish up at a citizens advice bureau trying to explain their circumstances. I am sure that they always receive assistance on how to pursue the matter.

Russell Brown: My hon. Friend is on an extremely important point. He may have had the same experience with some of his constituents as I have had with some of mine, who may not wish to say anything about the national minimum wage and simply tend to look for another job where it is being paid. Not having been paid the appropriate going rate, they fall into the very category that the Bill is looking at, in that they become ex-employees.

John Lyons: My hon. Friend raises a very important point. The evidence proves quite clearly that people in that situation often feel that they are forced to leave a job rather than pursue the issue, as my hon. Friend described.
	I should like to give the House four examples. The Scottish Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux has produced documentation on the question of the national minimum wage. It says:
	"A North of Scotland CAB reports of female client who works as a cleaner. The manager is withholding the annual pay increases until October when the NMW increases. Her contract states that increases come in April of each year. The delay will mean that all employees will lose 6 months of increased pay."
	This is where there are problems related to the minimum wage: other actions are taken because of it as some very awkward employers try to find ways around the legislation. That is why all of us need to make sure that the legislation is tightened up in a way that makes it impossible for people—

John Bercow: I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I have been listening to his speech with interest and approval. What the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Brown) said was perfectly valid, but it is worth while also looking at the other side of the equation. If former employees cannot secure redress, even though of course they no longer have any reason to be anxious about the reaction of their former employer, there is obviously scant hope for existing employees seeking to secure redress for past underpayment. In that sense, there is a commonality of interest in supporting the Bill between current and past employees.

John Lyons: That is a very valid point. The position clearly is that when people leave a job, the fact that they have highlighted a problem, either to the compliance people or the citizens advice bureau, may well bring in enforcement for people who are still employed by that employer. There is clear evidence that that has happened in the past. We return to a situation in which there may be a collective of workpeople unprepared or frightened to raise the issue, despite the fact that colleagues are leaving regularly, but the enforcement officers give that alternative, saying "We are here to find out what is happening on the minimum wage." No one knows who has reported the matter, and there is no pressure, hopefully, on employees for that reason. But this leads to an interesting area of work, which is—

Michael Weir: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there can be a problem with enforcement in that the minimum wage is not always enforced in the same way throughout the country? In some cases enforcement officers have gone to a firm for an employee and have looked only at the wages of that employee rather than of everybody in the firm. Unless it is done throughout the firm, it can have the effect of identifying the employee.

John Lyons: That is an important issue that needs to be considered. Enforcement should be done across the whole range of people in the organisation concerned, rather than in specific cases. I commend the work of the citizens advice bureaux, because they are trying to assist people on a daily basis with problems related to the minimum wage and other associated difficulties.
	I have another example from the Scottish Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux:
	"An East of Scotland CAB reports of a female client who received a 'new' contract of employment confirming entitlement to paid holiday leave. However, the contract also stated that her salary included 8 per cent. to cover the cost of paid leave."
	So the minimum wage had a deduction of 8 per cent. to pay for paid holidays, which is nonsense and unlawful. We need to try to make sure that we cover this matter in any future legislation so that the loophole for employers to do that is closed and people are employed in a very fair way.
	Here is another example:
	"A North of Scotland CAB reports of a female client employed as a cleaner paid 28p an hour above the NMW."
	Hon. Members will probably think that it is good that that extra 28p is being paid, but
	"When she inquired with her employer about entitlement to holiday pay, she was told that the 28p over the NMW is paid to cover her holiday entitlement."

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have allowed the hon. Gentleman a certain amount of scope in making his speech, but the time has come to remind him of the content of the Bill. This is not a general debate about the minimum wage and other perceived defects or advantages. It is about this particular Bill, which seeks to correct a particular loophole.

John Lyons: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for your guidance.
	I return to the point that I started on. The loophole is there. We need to close it. Everyone will agree with that. I give my hon. Friend the Minister my full support.

Vincent Cable: I wish to add to the general air of consensus and support for the Bill, which, as has already been noted, has the support of the Confederation of British Industry as well as the Trades Union Congress and all three parties in the House. Indeed, it was supported in the other place by my colleague, Lord Razzall.
	Although you have just reminded us, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that this is not a general debate on the minimum wage, it is probably fair to respond to the Minister's introductory comments, in which he rightly and fairly observed that the minimum wage legislation has been a success story. One of the reasons for that is that employers as well as employees have bought into it and accepted it. That is, at least in part, because of the way in which the system has operated. Effectively, we have had a relatively successful, growing economy and a tightening labour market. The minimum wage has increased the supply of workers because a lot of people at the bottom end of the pay scale now feel that it is more attractive to work than to remain on benefits. Employers have benefited from the system because there is more labour, workers have benefited because they are better paid and the Government have benefited because there are fewer benefit payments. Thus a triple gain has been made as a result of the way in which the minimum wage system has operated.
	What has yet to be demonstrated is that that system works equally well when there is a downturn in the economy. There may be questions about the effect of such a downturn on the demand for labour. Whether the system works well in those circumstances will partly depend on whether the generally successful system of setting the minimum wage at an economically sensible level continues. The Low Pay Commission's determination of that level in accordance with economic conditions seems to be a key element in the formula.
	The other element in the formula that has contributed to the system's success is the enforcement mechanism, which is what we are discussing today. It has not been emphasised enough that an important aspect of the current enforcement mechanism is that it functions to a very large extent on a voluntary basis. It is because employers have accepted the minimum wage and, by and large, enforced it without pressure and extensive form filling and bureaucracy that the system is working well. An admirable balance has been struck between an effective enforcement mechanism and one that is not as enormously intrusive and bureaucratic as those associated with other instruments, such as the working time directive. Employers are required, by and large, to enforce the system themselves, but that system gives individual workers the opportunity to take action, backed by enforcement officers. That strikes me as exactly the right balance.
	The Conservative spokesman mentioned the question that I now want to ask: why are we back here with this legislation? I was not involved in discussion of the original legislation, but it seems obvious with hindsight that somebody should have asked about retrospective payment and questioned why it was not covered. I am not pointing fingers at anybody. Clearly, nobody in the House of Commons or the other place picked up on the problem, nor did Government draftsmen and administrators, but I am still baffled about why the provision slipped through. It may have done so because of a lack of scrutiny, as the Conservative spokesman suggested. There may also have been a particularly quirky ruling by a judge. If that is the case, it might have been more appropriate to have an appeal process than to introduce fresh legislation.

Henry Bellingham: As I understand it, the old law covered future and present underpayment; it also covered past underpayment if it was combined with those two things. According to the tribunal, it was underpayment in the past only that was not included.

Vincent Cable: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that clarification, but it seems odd that we are returning to the Chamber to debate the matter, whatever the reason.

Annabelle Ewing: As I understand it, an appeal is pending, as the Inland Revenue is appealing against the Employment Appeal Tribunal's decision.

Vincent Cable: I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention, which raises the question whether, if the Government win the appeal, the amendment introduced by the Bill will be superfluous or whether it introduces a new element into the process.
	I want to speak only for a few minutes, so I shall return to the issue of substance and consider why the process of retrospective payment is important. Many of the arguments have already been covered. It is clearly unjust that people should not be able to claim back payment of the minimum wage if they have left the employer in question, and especially if they were dismissed. The threat of dismissal on pursuing rights to the minimum wage is especially important and it is right that people should have the entitlement in that regard. I want also to reinforce the other point that has been made: many people will be much bolder in pursuing a claim once they have left the employer and the threat of dismissal is no longer hanging over them. There are good reasons why the retrospective issue must be addressed.
	It has not been mentioned that large sums may be involved. There is a lot of difference between a current minimum wage problem, which will involve a few pounds a week, and three years of underpayment, which may involve several thousand pounds. In those circumstances, it is much more likely that a bad employer will resist and force the process to a tribunal, and that an enforcement officer will have to be engaged. There are very good reasons why there should be proper protection with regard to retrospective payment.
	My final point relates to limitations, which were raised in another place by Baroness Miller. The Government have said—I think that I understood the argument correctly—that the problem is to some extent academic, as after three years there is no longer a requirement to collect data. Why should there be a limit? Presumably, the legislation will still be here in 10 years. There may be some hard cases in which people were working in very malign circumstances with oppressive employers who systematically underpaid them for very long periods. There may be good records to demonstrate what has happened in such cases. Why should people who have suffered such enormous losses find that they have run out of time for arbitrary reasons? If they can demonstrate their case, it will not matter whether three, six, nine or 10 years are involved.

John Bercow: The hon. Gentleman raises an important issue. Does he accept, however, that there is a powerful case for amending the Bill to provide for mandatory interest charges on underpayments, given that that would be widely regarded as right in itself and that many people who have been maltreated through illegal underpayment for long periods will thereby have fallen into indebtedness?

Vincent Cable: That is a very good point. I would have made it slightly differently, but I agree that, after long periods of underpayment, the real value of people's payment is lost because of inflation—assuming that inflation is present. In any event, there should be some compensation for such loss, and interest payments seem a sensible and fair way of dealing with the issue.
	I want to question why there is a need for a formal limit on the period involved and why enforcement officers cannot come forward in the small number of cases that will arise and support a claimant in exceptional circumstances involving a significant backlog of arrears, perhaps in a decade's time. That is a small technical point that the Minister may not have considered.
	In broad terms, I am glad to see that there is support for the Bill in all parts of the House. The fact that we all now support the principle of the minimum wage is remarkable in itself, given the controversy about it five or 10 years ago. Given that we all support the change that the Bill makes, perhaps the House can proceed to other business fairly speedily. 2.37 pm

Chris Pond: Only a few hours ago, I received a phone call from the Low Pay Unit—an organisation for which I worked for 18 years—asking whether I would like to collect some of my personal possessions from it, as it is sadly having to wind up its operation this week. It is a sad irony that we are discussing a measure such as the Bill on the very day when the organisation that had kept such issues in the forefront of our attention for so many years is sadly no longer with us.
	I also welcome the fact that we are discussing the Bill today. Like the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), I was privileged to be involved in seeing the original minimum wage legislation through Parliament. We tried to anticipate and close every possible loophole, but we clearly failed to do so in respect of this Bill. I am pleased that Opposition Members are with us on the Bill, because I remember sitting long hours through the night while the minimum wage itself was being opposed.
	The particular loophole in question is important because it can render enforcement of the national minimum wage almost completely ineffective. This small Bill will help to bring the minimum wage back to life. It is important because it gives back to enforcement officers the power to enforce payment of arrears of underpaid wages. As the Minister and other hon. Members have pointed out, trade unions may still be able to pursue payment of arrears on behalf of their members, but many of the lowest paid are not members of trade unions. They are often in a vulnerable position and work in small establishments in isolated circumstances.

David Hamilton: One of the loopholes that bad employers—small employers—exploit is that they are not required to recognise trade unions if they have only 12 employees. Does my hon. Friend agree that a change in that legislation could be helpful?

Chris Pond: That is a major problem. I would not agree with bracketing bad employers and small employers together, however, because many small employers are very good employers. We must encourage as far as possible the employers—the firms—to be fully involved in the negotiation process at a collective level, and ensure that people working in small firms feel that it is worth their while to become members of trade unions. That is why people in those circumstances will rely on enforcement officers to make sure that they get their entitlements under the law. That is not necessarily something that they can pursue through trade unions, although I pay tribute to organisations such as the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux for advising people in those circumstances.
	The Bill is also important because, as the Minister pointed out, claims for underpayment are often made only after employment has come to an end. Without the Bill, there would be a real incentive for employers to dismiss staff as soon as they became aware of an investigation.
	It has been pleasing to hear Conservative Members supporting the Bill. I detected a certain anxiety on their part to ensure that people understood that they now really are in favour of a national minimum wage. Indeed, the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) said that they would campaign for it at the next election. I pay tribute to them for such a dramatic conversion on the Damascene bypass.

John Bercow: I understand the hon. Gentleman's surprise at the change of heart that has taken place among Members on the Conservative Benches. I put it to him that I do not deny that I have changed my mind on the issue, as I have manifestly done so. I would simply argue, however, that there is no shame in having previously made a mistake, only in failing to acknowledge the possibility that one may have done so.

Chris Pond: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's admission of a previous mistake. He has been very honest in his position—he has not pretended that there was not a period when he completely opposed the national minimum wage, nor that he did not support a previous Government who abolished a minimum wage system that had existed from 1909 until the mid-1990s. In responding to the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk, he referred to the words of Winston Churchill, so perhaps I may remind the House that Winston Churchill said that without the minimum wage
	"the good employer is undercut by the bad, and the bad employer is undercut by the worst".—[Official Report, 28 April 1909; Vol. IV, c. 388.]
	That is why it is important that the Bill is supported not only by Members on both sides of the House, but by the TUC and the CBI. Otherwise, we would have a situation whereby the good employer was also undercut by the Employment Appeal Tribunal. The Bill will ensure that we provide protection not only for the most vulnerable workers, but against undercutting and unfair competition for the great majority of firms, large and small, who pay the minimum wage and recognise that decent conditions of employment make good business sense and improve competitiveness and efficiency. I welcome and applaud this small Bill.

Annabelle Ewing: I rise to add the support of the Scottish National party to this important Bill. Hon. Members will be aware of the SNP's long-standing commitment to the principle of a minimum wage as the mark of a civilised society. It is regrettable, however, that the Government have not taken this opportunity to end the age discrimination that is inherent in the minimum wage legislation. We in the SNP believe that there should be a rate for the job, regardless of age. I believe that that view is also expressed forcefully by the TUC and the Scottish Trades Union Congress.
	We support the aim of the Bill, which is to deal with an anomaly that has arisen in respect of enforcement notices. That anomaly became clear following last summer's ruling by the Employment Appeal Tribunal, and I understand that the Inland Revenue is appealing the decision. Further to the decision, law enforcement notices may be issued in relation to past periods where the worker is no longer employed. I do not believe that that was the intention of the National Minimum Wage Act 1998—indeed, it would have made a mockery of it had that been the case. It would have excluded affected workers from the support system of the enforcement officers, which is an innovative approach that has been much welcomed by many individuals who have found themselves in the invidious position of not having been paid a proper wage for their work.
	On retrospection, I have already asked the Minister to clarify the position in Scotland. From my reading this morning, it seems to me that the Limitation Act 1980 does not apply in Scotland. If the retrospective approach, which we support, is based on a six-year period to reflect the position in English law, has account been taken of the position in Scots law whereby the general prescriptive period is five years for civil recovery? We do not want the Bill to create a further loophole by not reflecting the reality of the situation under Scots law.
	On the exclusion of the agricultural minimum wage regime from the scope of the Bill, I am aware that the Scottish Executive decided against seeking a Sewel motion, which is unprecedented since the inception of the Scottish Parliament. That is a welcome move, if a bit late in the day. Instead, legislation is to be introduced in parallel in the Scottish Parliament. I welcome that development.
	I shall keep my comments brief because hon. Members have said much today that we can all sign up to and support. The Scottish National party and Plaid Cymru support the Bill, which will enhance the protection available to workers and close a loophole that was never intended. We congratulate the Government on quickly introducing a Bill to deal with the matter and to close the loophole, but we regret that they have not taken this opportunity to end the age discrimination that is inherent in the minimum wage legislation.

Michael Connarty: This amendment to the National Minimum Wage Act 1998 is welcome. It is sad that any company could force the Government to introduce legislation by underpaying 25 workers to the tune of £37,000. That shows how mean people can be. We can talk about big employers as opposed to small employers, but in my view many employers like low-wage employees because they want to cut their wage bill, and if they can cut it below the national minimum wage, they will.
	The Bill amends section 19 of the 1998 Act, which empowers the officer to serve a notice on any employer who has not paid a worker at a rate that is at least equal to the national minimum wage. The Bill will allow the officer to serve a notice in retrospect regarding people who have left employment. I have read that £9,412,513 has been gained in actions by persons under the tribunals established by the 1998 Act. Can the Minister tell me how many of them were in the category to which I have been referring for some time in questions and in debates in my parliamentary group? I refer to the 4 million people who work in the service industry and have to prove under the 1998 Act that they receive their tips personally and that those tips are not given to their employer. I conducted research and the Minister said that there were references to the Low Pay Commission. However, when people give a tip through a credit card, an enforcement officer would find it difficult to know whether they intended it to go to the individual who had served them or to the employer to distribute among all the employees, and thereby be included as part of the minimum wage.
	Even if someone gives a tip in cash in a place that has a kitty—it has a special name in the 1998 Act—the money can be distributed among all the employees and taken into account as part of their minimum wage. If the people who gave the tip wanted it to go to the individual who served them, but it was taken into account as part of the minimum wage, how would the enforcement officer make a judgment? How does he judge, under section 20 onwards in the 1998 Act, whether the employer is compliant?
	I believe that the Bill covers those who leave employment because they cannot get their employer to give them a proper wage. Perhaps the employer is giving them less than the cash sum of £4.20. I spoke in the Statutory Instrument Committee that upgraded the sum to £4.20, and I wanted it increased to £5. I have continually raised cases in which a substantial tip by the customer makes up the £4.20. Surely those employees are not being paid the national minimum wage. Tips intended for an individual should be in addition to the £4.20. An opportunity to deal with that vital point has been missed. How can we enforce the rights of the 4 million people in the service industry who get tips from customers?
	I welcome the Bill because it can be applied retrospectively to take on bad employers such as Bebb Travel, which did not pay money that was clearly owed and not related to tips. However, I challenge the Minister to justify the fact that enforcement officers will continue to wade through a mire of accusation and counter-accusation if it appears that a large portion of the wages that people in the service industry receive is made up of tips that customers pay them directly.

Alan Johnson: With the leave of the House, I shall reply to the debate. Many technical issues are probably best left to the Committee, but I shall try to pick up some of the main points that have been made in our short debate.
	First, the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) applauded the minimum wage. My hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Pond) said that he sensed a move by the Conservative party towards a campaigning mode on the national minimum wage. However, the two issues that the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk raised suggest that some contradiction remains. We do not know whether we face an Opposition of Rebecca of Sunnybrook Farm or the Boston strangler on the minimum wage. On the one hand, they claim that they are so keen on it and on helping low-paid workers that there is no need to delay Royal Assent for two months, but on the other, they ask why we allow people to receive arrears of more than three years. We suggest six years.
	Six years is consistent with the Limitation Act 1980. A six-year limit already applies in county courts for arrears in overtime payments and bonuses. I shall deal with Scotland and the sheriff courts shortly. The six-year limit is therefore well established and there is no reason to change it. There is probably a better argument for asking employers to keep records on the minimum wage for longer than three years than for reducing the arrears payment to three years. Perhaps we will deal with that in Committee.
	I am advised that the normal conventions, which are cleared through the Cabinet Office and the Attorney-General, provide for legislation to be introduced immediately only in the most exceptional cases. There is no problem with keeping to normal conventions on the Bill because we have deliberately ensured that, since August 2002, we keep track of every employer who has had a case reported to enforcement officers. We shall also ensure that the Bill applies retrospectively. I am pleased about the extent of consensus on it. It is a fair point that even waiting two months can be a problem for low-paid workers. However, given our efforts to ensure that we can pick up the so-called Bebb cases so that people get their money, there is no need to breach the normal conventions.
	The hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) made a point about interest. The majority of cases are pursued through the county courts, and interest is paid on the debt. We are considering thousands of cases that go through county courts and only 100 to 150 a year that go through employment tribunals. The hon. Gentleman's wishes at 5 o'clock in the morning many years ago have therefore been fulfilled to some extent.
	The hon. Member for North-West Norfolk made a point about wording. He said that the drafting was convoluted. I have much sympathy with that point. We used to have a campaign, which involved eminent former parliamentarians and others, on clear language in Bills. I shall shortly deal with the reasons for introducing a Bill rather than conducting an appeal. I was asked whether that was a result of poor draftsmanship, whether an error had occurred or whether we should have spotted a lacuna. Before dealing with that, I simply draw hon. Members' attention to the original wording, which was approved despite intense scrutiny in the House and in another place. It stated in clear, unambiguous language:
	"An enforcement notice may also require the employer to pay to the worker within such time as may be specified in the notice the sum due to the worker under section 17—
	which simply points out the difference between what the minimum wage should be and actual wages—
	"in respect of the employer's previous failure to remunerate the worker at a rate at least equal to the national minimum wage."
	That is clear, unambiguous, plain English. However, we now have to include a wodge of words to ensure that lawyers do not overturn our precise meaning. That is a powerful argument for the need for the convoluted wording on Scottish agriculture. We want to ensure that we are not in such a position again.

John Bercow: During proceedings on the Standing Committee that considered the National Minimum Wage Act 1998, on which I served with the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Pond), my hon. Friends the Members for Banbury (Tony Baldry), for Solihull (Mr. Taylor), for Ashford (Mr. Green), for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond), for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) and I subjected the measure to close and rigorous scrutiny. None of us noticed the lacuna, if it existed. The Minister does not need to beat himself over the head about that.

Alan Johnson: I shall not beat myself over the head. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Pensions was responsible for the 1998 Act. His head is much lower and is therefore easier to beat. However, I am sure that he will not beat himself over the head, either. We do not accept that there is a lacuna or a problem with the drafting. The point is that, given that there is a possibility that we could lose the appeal—for the reasons that I gave earlier, we cannot rule that out, no matter how confident we are about the wording—and that we are talking about low-paid workers, this is very important. Incidentally, we have concentrated on ex-employees being able to claim arrears, but the Bebb Travel judgment also means that current employees who have not been paid the minimum wage can get their money now and in the future but cannot claim arrears, so both groups of workers are disqualified.
	We are not prepared to take the risk of losing the appeal, then having to see whether we can get a slot in the parliamentary timetable for a Bill, then—way down the track—having to exercise the Bill. People ask why we do not withdraw the appeal. I am advised that that is because we would have to pay the costs to Bebb Travel, and we have already put a fair amount of money into this case. When it arose in August last year, we could not guarantee that we would get a Bill, or that any Bill would get a slot, so we lodged the appeal. It would also be wrong for us to withdraw the appeal because we would be prejudging the decision of Parliament, and because we might have to give lots of public money to the company that we are challenging. Those are important reasons for not withdrawing it.

Bill Tynan: Does my hon. Friend agree that another benefit of taking the amendment through Parliament is that it will send a clear signal to bad employers that, when situations such as this arise, we are willing to deal with them?

Alan Johnson: That is the most powerful point. It is the real reason. We took the decision, almost immediately after the Bebb Travel judgment, to give out the clear message that workers should never be put in this position again. My hon. Friend the Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Lyons), who has long experience of these issues, said that he was puzzled by the Employment Appeal Tribunal's decision. All I can say to that is, so are we. The hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) talked about the Liberal Democrats' support for the Bill, but also asked why we should come back with legislation rather than an appeal. I hope that I have now covered that point. My hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham gave us the bad news about the Low Pay Unit. I think that my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) was one of its founding fathers, and he will be as dismayed as I am to hear the news of its demise.
	The hon. Member for Perth (Annabelle Ewing) raised the issue about Scotland. I would like to go into more detail about that in Committee. I am advised that the sheriff courts are the equivalent to the county courts in England and Wales. The hon. Lady is right to say that the limitation in Scotland is five years. We consulted the Scottish Executive through the Scotland Office, and decided to leave the provisions as they are, which means that the legislation will provide for a limitation of six years but in Scotland it will be only five years because of the different legislation and because of the horrendous complications of trying to draft the measures differently. We have acted on the advice that we received from the Scottish Executive and the Scotland Office; we will perhaps explore the matter in greater detail in Committee.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty) has been extremely assiduous in pursuing the issue of tipping, in relation to how it affects the national minimum wage. An important point that I know he will appreciate is that carrying the Bill forward today will help us to enforce arrears payments for people in the service industry who have been underpaid. In relation to the issues that he has raised, I will undertake to talk to the enforcement officers—who do a splendid job for us all round the country—on the specific issue of tipping, and I shall write to my hon. Friend about how that is being dealt with. The basis of the original legislation, as hon. Members who served on the Bill will remember, is that if tips go through the payroll, they can be counted in terms of the national minimum wage. If they do not go through the payroll, they cannot. I understand that there are abuses of that system, many of which my hon. Friend mentioned.

Michael Connarty: I am grateful to my hon. and personal Friend. I know that he is assiduous in trying to follow this up, but why do not the Government just accept that, when people give a tip to someone in the industry, they are giving it as an addition to that person's wages? That is why they give it; they give it as an extra. In France, a tip is called a pourboire, meaning "for a drink". It is an extra. Why do we insist that anyone should take that into account when they are paying a wage for the hours worked? That is wrong, and the Government should change it.

Alan Johnson: If we can separate that issue from the Bill, which I know he appreciates is narrowly focused on arrears, we can look at it. It is a bit like the issue of young workers, which has been raised by other hon. Members. We can deal with that through secondary legislation, and we have got the Low Pay Commission to look into it for us. I want to ask our enforcement officers about the specific points that my hon. Friend has raised. He has raised them before and they are very important. The original decision on tipping, as it appears in the National Minimum Wage Act 1998, was based on the fact that, in some areas of employment—restaurants, in particular—pooled tips are often paid through the payroll as part of the contract of employment. That is my understanding of the argument, although I was not on the Committee that considered that Bill. Let us address that matter separately, however, because I want to look at the specific issues that my hon. Friend raised.

Henry Bellingham: The Minister mentioned that he would like to separate the issue of tipping from this mini-Bill, but the Bill is about enforcement. Might there be an opportunity in Committee to go back to this issue, and perhaps to table an amendment to make it illegal for employers to pool tips in a way that means they become part of the minimum wage calculation? Would it not be reasonable to consider that in Committee?

Alan Johnson: Let us look at the issue in Committee in respect of enforcement. It would be a mistake to widen the scope of the Bill, but let us deal with that in Committee.

Annabelle Ewing: I would like to go back a few sentences to the Minister's reference to a point that I raised earlier about the inherent age discrimination against young workers in the present legislation. He mentioned that the matter could be dealt with through secondary legislation. What plans do the UK Government now have to deal with this problem?

Alan Johnson: I cannot let this matter lie. I am not talking about age discrimination; I am talking about a decision taken by the House. In the experience of many other countries, introducing a national minimum wage for 16 and 17-year-olds, in particular, takes the focus away from education and harms the ability of those who leave school at that age to get work. Further experience shows that 18 to 21-year-olds who have a minimum wage, albeit set at a different level, are in a similar position. This is a crucial issue.
	The reason that the implementation of the minimum wage has been so successful is that we confounded all the critics. We have a minimum wage, and 1.4 million more people in work. Had we failed to achieve that, we might perhaps have made an argument that would have gone down well as oratory at union conferences, but which could well have destroyed the principle of the minimum wage in this country, which was very reluctant to adopt it in the first place. Labour Members will remember that it was not only Conservative Members who opposed it 20 or 30 years ago; the British trade union movement did so as well. We need to remember that the idea grew roots. To answer the question put by the hon. Member for Perth, the Low Pay Commission has been asked specifically to look again at the rates for 18 to 21-year-olds, and for 16 and 17-year-olds. The Low Pay Commission is a piece of social partnership in action, and I believe that it has done a tremendous job.
	I have strayed off the subject slightly, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I was provoked into doing so. I would now like to commend to the House this very positive approach to these matters. The Bill is crucial to a very vulnerable group of workers. It might not be the most important piece of business that we conduct this week, and it might not attract the most attention, but it is crucial to that group of workers and I look forward to debating the issues again in Committee.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Bill accordingly read a Second time.

NATIONAL MINIMUM WAGE (ENFORCEMENT NOTICES) BILL [LORDS] [MONEY]

Queen's recommendation having been signified—
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order 52(1)(a) (Money resolutions and ways and means resolutions in connection with Bills),
	That for the purposes of any Act resulting from the National Minimum Wage (Enforcement Notices) Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable out of money so provided under any other Act.—[Mr. Jim Murphy.]
	Question agreed to.

Northern Ireland

Jane Kennedy: I beg to move,
	That the draft Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act 1997 (Amnesty Period) Order 2003, which was laid before this House on 23rd January, be approved.
	The order appoints 26 February 2004 as the date before which the amnesty period identified in a non-statutory decommissioning scheme must end. The amnesty period is the time during which firearms, ammunition and explosives can be decommissioned in accordance with the scheme. The amnesty provides immunity from prosecution for the offences set out in the schedule to the 1997 Act—offences that might be committed during the decommissioning process. Most such offences are possessory in nature, but others concern offences that may stem from a person's participation in decommissioning, not necessarily centred on the weapons involved but centred on the behaviour that may accompany participation, such as the withholding of information or making arrangements with terrorists.
	Section 2 of the 1997 Act, as amended by the Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning (Amendment) Act 2002, requires that a scheme must identify the amnesty period, and that it must end before 27 February 2003 unless the Secretary of State, by order, appoints a later day. The purpose of the order is to extend that period until midnight on 25 February next year.
	In April last year, shortly after we renewed these provisions, the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning reported witnessing an event in which the IRA leadership had put a varied and substantial quantity of ammunition, arms and explosive material beyond use. The Government welcomed that news because it showed that the decommissioning act during October 2001 had not been an isolated event. However, over the last year most of the news has been less encouraging. The Colombian episode continued to unfold, and paramilitary violence on the streets, consisting of both assaults and shootings, has continued unabated. The break-in at Castlereagh and the intelligence-gathering operation at Stormont further contributed to the general loss of confidence among the parties.
	Unionism needs to be confident that republicanism is fully committed to peaceful and democratic means, and nationalists need to know that Unionism is genuinely committed to making the institutions work. It was against that background, that, regrettably, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, North and Bellshill (Dr. Reid) decided to suspend the Assembly.
	The Government remain totally committed to the full implementation of the Belfast agreement, but my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made it clear in his speech in Belfast last October that we had come to the fork in the road. It is time for everyone in Northern Ireland to choose the peaceful and democratic path. It is time for acts of completion. There must be an end to all paramilitary activity. If that commitment is given we can implement the rest of the agreement, including normalisation, in its entirety, and not in stages but together.
	My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has been working tirelessly with all involved to try to find a way to restore devolved government as soon as possible. Tomorrow my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach will be engaged in bilateral discussions with the parties, with a view to moving the process forward. No one believes that that will be easy: the IRA, the Ulster Volunteer Force and the Red Hand Commando have suspended contact with the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning. We regret that. It is not the way in which to secure progress and I urge those organisations to re-engage with General de Chastelain at the earliest opportunity: it is essential that this vital aspect of the agreement be honoured in full.
	We have said many times that it is time for violence and the threat of violence to be taken out of politics for ever and for all sides to demonstrate that they are totally committed to peaceful and democratic means. That process has begun and, although it is currently in a difficult phase, the Government must continue to provide the legal framework necessary to make full decommissioning a reality. We will do that through this order.
	The House will know of the so-called 'loyalist' feud that has claimed eight lives over recent months, and of the misery and suffering that it has inflicted on the local community. That too only serves to underline the need to make real and substantial progress towards a peaceful society in Northern Ireland where weapons no longer circulate freely. We need to see the end of the mindset that says the retention of arms provides a useful lever in negotiations. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister pointed out, that simply makes it impossible for others to engage.
	What stands in the way of the fulfilment of the Belfast agreement is the threat of violence. Remove that—end the activity of paramilitary organisations completely and for good—and we can begin to rebuild the trust and confidence necessary to restore stable and inclusive institutions, so that the democratic vision of Northern Ireland that we all share can become a reality. There are even signs from within the Democratic Unionist party that in such circumstances the party would feel able to do business with Sinn Fein. That is surely a measure of the potent appeal of devolved government.
	As always at these times, I want to pay tribute to General John de Chastelain and his colleagues in the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning, whose persistence and dedication have been instrumental in bringing us this far. Their commitment to this process has been extraordinary and we all owe them a considerable debt of thanks.
	The Prime Minister has called for acts of completion. We in Government stand ready and we are holding the door open, as the order shows. I commend it to the House.

Quentin Davies: Let me begin by endorsing what the Minister said about General de Chastelain. I have got to know him quite well over the past year and a half, along with his two deputies—one American, the other Finnish. I formed the highest regard for them. They are men of fine professional standing, who have been prepared to give up much of their lives to contributing to the attempts to solve the often apparently intractable problems of Northern Ireland. We are all very much in their debt.
	Obviously, we will not oppose the order. I cannot imagine any sane or rational person wanting to do so. We support decommissioning. It is clear that in a decommissioning process there must be provision for people to take part in that process, and to hand over weapons without immediately suffering penal consequences. We want, above all, decommissioning: we want the achievement of the peace process. It would therefore be perverse to deter people from handing over weapons by allowing them to feel that they might immediately be subject to arrest and personal prosecution on some related matter.
	Nevertheless, as the Minister says, it is very disappointing that we must renew the existing legislation. According to the Belfast agreement, the whole process of decommissioning should have been completed within two years—that is, by 2002. We are now in 2003: it is three years late. That is an extremely unsatisfactory state of affairs.
	Of course the moral responsibility lies with the paramilitary organisations. On one side is the IRA. Sinn Fein-IRA is a party to the agreement. The Sinn Fein section of the Sinn Fein-IRA movement formally signed up to it, but the whole purpose of the agreement, and of treating Sinn Fein as a kind of proxy, was that it stood for the republican movement as a whole. So there is no doubt whatsoever that it has defaulted on this major, absolutely key undertaking in the agreement. Indeed, it continues to default on it, despite two acts of decommissioning that, as we all know, add up to only a small fraction—nobody knows quite how small—of the total armoury. On the other side, there has been only one, purely symbolic act of decommissioning by any of the loyalist paramilitary organisations. Those that signed up to the peace process have been in breach of it by not carrying out decommissioning. Frankly, those that did not sign up to it have betrayed the people of Northern Ireland by not contributing to what is clearly the best chance for a peaceful and normal future for Northern Ireland that any of us have seen, certainly in our lifetimes, since the troubles began.
	The moral responsibility clearly rests on the shoulders of the paramilitary organisations, republican and loyalist. However, as I said yesterday—I hope that the Minister will recall it all too clearly—the Government bear a large burden of responsibility because of the many tactical errors that they have made. They simply have not used the leverage available to them. They gave away the prisoners without any decommissioning at all. Giving away such a major card without anything to show in return was extraordinary. It was an absolutely shameful act of negligence on their part.
	As I said yesterday, what was equally extraordinary was giving concessions to people who had not fulfilled their obligations under the Belfast agreement. They were rewarded by being given more goodies and benefits. For example, special status was granted in this place for Sinn Fein MPs. There was the promise of an amnesty—even though we managed to prevent its being implemented—for on-the-run terrorists. As I said yesterday, thank God we succeeded in opposing that amnesty, because as a result that important card remains in the Government's hands. However, we should give no credit to the Government for that. Indeed, they have made a whole series of mistakes, and they should acknowledge that fact. I hope that they will not continue to make them and, above all, that we will now see a greater degree of clarity and decisiveness on their part. There should be no more talk of inch-by-inch progress, as if one can somehow make progress in implementing Belfast in a partial way. The mechanism whereby it was deemed sufficient to secure partial acts of decommissioning or other partial acts, to which the Government respond with a concession of their own, has not worked at all. As I said yesterday, it is clear that we now need a global, comprehensive and definitive settlement.
	In Belfast before Christmas, the Prime Minister apparently talked bravely about a fork in the road, but so far that fine rhetoric, which I welcomed at the time, has not been reflected in action. I was particularly concerned at the Minister's response when I asked her yesterday, across the Dispatch Box, whether she would define the "acts of completion" that the Government talk about. I asked her to call a spade a spade and say that those acts of completion have to be nothing less than the completion of decommissioning, as provided for in the Belfast agreement, and the disbandment of the IRA by Sinn Fein-IRA. She simply said that she could not offer a better definition than the Prime Minister did, when he used the phrase "acts of completion". Well, she could define it better than the Prime Minister—by speaking of decommissioning and disbandment.

Tom Harris: rose—

Quentin Davies: No, I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman now.
	The fact that the Minister will not use the phrase "decommissioning and disbandment", and prefers the vague euphemism "acts of completion", is very worrying. What is more, I have noticed that the Government have slipped from using the definite article to using the indefinite form. Instead of speaking of the "act of completion" that is required, they speak of "acts of completion". If she thinks about it, that is not entirely logical. There must be one act that completes everything—there cannot be several different acts of completion. By using such a vague term, she implies a certain flexibility as to what might ultimately be considered as falling within that category. So when she should be sending a signal of clarity to paramilitary organisations, and to Sinn Fein-IRA in particular, she is sending one of ambiguity.
	There may or may not have been a place for ambiguity in the Belfast agreement itself. Without some degree of ambiguity and fudging at that stage, the agreement may well not have been secured in the first place. Nevertheless, it is the seeds of ambiguity and the lack of clarity in the Belfast agreement that have led to many of the disappointments of the past five years. What is absolutely clear to the Opposition is that if there ever was a time for ambiguity, it has now passed. Now is the time for complete clarity. Now is the time to carry out decommissioning and disbandment.

Lembit �pik: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Quentin Davies: No, I will not give way for the moment.
	Now is the time for the Government to use the phrase decommissioning and disbandment, and they should not be afraid to use it. As I said yesterday, if they want to use another word for disbandment I am perfectly happy with that, as long as it has the same degree of finality. The Government must now say what they mean. We do not want camouflage words, as I call them, which try to cover up the exact definition of the terms of the agreement. We must be absolutely clear about that.

Tom Harris: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Quentin Davies: No, I am sorry but I am not going to give way at the moment.
	The second thing that we really need is a timetable. Indeed, we called for one some 18 months ago, when I first talked about a programmed process, leading to full decommissioning. It is clear that if we get the comprehensive and definitive settlement that we need in Northern Ireland in the next few weeksin fact, we only have the next few weeks in which to achieve thatwe will not be able to carry out everything in that package overnight. For example, it would not be possible to decommission entirely overnight. A reduction in the British military presence in Northern Ireland would be perfectly reasonable, provided there is a corresponding improvement in the security situation; however, that, too, cannot be carried out overnight.
	It is in this regard that we will need a set timetable, and we will also need interlinkage. It must be made absolutely plain that if one party does not deliver what it is supposed to deliver under that timetable, other elements that that party might have been looking for will also not be delivered under that timetable. It must be made absolutely clear that such strict interlinkage will continue until the final and complete implementation of Belfast. We should not have any fudges about that, nor should we have any of the resistance that the Government have so far displayed towards the whole concept of a timetable. When the right hon. Member for Hamilton, North and Bellshill (Dr. Reid) was Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and I used to use the word timetable, the Government would often object and say that I was completely wrong. They said that we should not have timetables because they are inimical to progress in Northern Ireland. What nonsense! Of course, we would not have secured the Belfast agreement without a timetable, as I often told the right hon. Gentleman. I hope again that the question of the timetable will be clarified in the Government's mind. We need a timetable.
	Thirdly, if the peace process is to be successful, what we do must be transparent. Nothing less will create the necessary confidence among other parties. People will not deliver their side of the bargain if they do not believe that others are going to deliver theirs. People need to feel confident that there has been a qualitative change in the situation in Northern Ireland, and that the peace process has come to a successful conclusion.
	In the context of decommissioning, transparency means that acts of decommissioning will be more transparent than hitherto. I have discussed that with General de Chastelain in private. I shall not say what shape that conversation took, but I am sure that many people in Northern Ireland agree with that principle. If the Government are to succeed in negotiating what I described as the necessary, comprehensive and definitive deal, that deal must provide sufficient transparency in implementation so that public confidence can be maintained. Indeed, there is a statement on the record from the IRA itself saying that that organisation wished to decommission in a way that maximised public confidence. We should hold it to that. The same thing applies to the necessary decommissioning that must take place on the loyalists' side.
	The other word beginning with d that the Government do not like is disbandment. That should also be subject to some sort of monitoring. Given the suspicions and difficulties evident in Northern Ireland, and the lack of performance, perhaps especially by republicans, we need more than a statement. Of course, we want a statement that the armed struggle is over and that the IRA has been disbanded. That is essential, but we also need assurance and some independent verification. We need verification of more than the decommissioning provided for in the Belfast agreement. We also need verification of disbandment.

David Burnside: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the problem is verification? What does decommissioning or disbandment mean when there is no trust in the political atmosphere in Northern Ireland? Does he agree that a Privy Council committee made up of the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition, the leader of the Liberal Democrats, the General Officer Commanding and the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland should be constituted to verify that decommissioning and disbandment had taken place? Would not that mean that hon. Members could then believe that it had taken place, and that we would not be misled by what is, at present, a con job?

Quentin Davies: I agree with the hon. Gentleman in the fundamental sense that there is a need for verification. I am glad that he used the word that I used just a few minutes earlier. We are at one, therefore. We accept the same concept, and use the same word to describe it. He should be very satisfied that we are in agreement. We need transparency and verificationthe word that he and I both used. The necessary confidence will come only if we have transparency and verification. He has proposed a mechanism to provide that verification, and the House will listen with interest on that. I hope that we can discuss similar interesting new ideas in this afternoon's debate.
	I was about to make another suggestion in respect of decommissioning. I do not for a moment want to change the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning, the de Chastelain commission. As I have said, I have the greatest confidence in General de Chastelain, and I think that that is shared across the political spectrum. In addition, it is clear that we need professional military officers of considerable standing to undertake what is a professional military task. The IICD provides that, and politicians would not make good substitutes for soldiers in that role. Moreover, the de Chastelain commission gives us an objective mechanism for determining whether decommissioning has taken place. That is vital.
	As the hon. Member for South Antrim (David Burnside) will be all too well aware, we could otherwise argue until the end of time about whether decommissioning had taken place. Without the IICD, people could always claim that weapons were being kept somewhere. They would not produce evidence, or say where the weapons were being kept. That could go on forever, and the position would be hopeless. However, thanks to the IICD, we now have an objective mechanism to determine such matters. If de Chastelain says that decommissioning has taken place, we can take it that there has been decommissioning. If he says that half an arsenal has been decommissioned, we can take it that only half has been decommissioned. If he says that decommissioning has been substantially and materially completedthat is what we want to hear, the end of the processwe can accept that.
	I have that confidence in de Chastelain, and I believe that it is shared by people across the political divide in Northern Ireland. It is difficult to imagine that the views of anyone else would have the same weight in making such a determination. That is common ground, which is good. As I saw the Minister nodding a few moments ago, I hope that that common ground is shared with the Government.
	My suggestion is made in a helpful spirit; no personal or political ego is invested in it, so if somebody came up with a better one I should be only too happy. Because, as the hon. Member for South Antrim said, we must all have the same confidence in the objective verification of disbandment as we require in decommissioning, we should use the same commission and extend its remit to verify disbandment. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that disbandment will certainly need verification.
	Disbandment means winding up military structures. At present, those structures are not engaged in active military operations but, as we know, they are engaged in training and targeting. They have certainly been engaged in buying arms, in breach of the agreement and the ceasefirethat was what Florida was about, and there may have been other cases. They are engaged in logistics, personnel management and all the other functions associated with such organisations. Their disbandment will be a military procedure. Professional soldiers will be able to get to the bottom of things and verify that disbandment is actually occurring. They will be able to find out what is happening not only to weapon stocks but to logistics, procurement and training.
	We should use the de Chastelain commission and expand its role. If someone has a better suggestion, that is fine, but we need some form of independent verification.
	I hope that the effect of the debate will be to make the Government go the whole hog in frankness, clarity and decisiveness in the use of language. I shall be most disappointed if the Minister again shelters behind the acts of completion formula. We do not want a theological formula; we need pragmatic facts. We need full disbandment and full decommissioning. Nothing less will do. I explained last night that we have only a few weeks to achieve it, so that we can reach a settlement on all the interlinked aspects, put the power-sharing Executive back, restore the momentum of the Belfast process and, indeed, save the Belfast process. Lord knows that we have only to look at what has been going on in Northern Ireland during the past few weeksthe bomb in Enniskillen and the disorder in west Belfastto realise what the stark consequences of that highly volatile situation could be if we miss this vital opportunity.

David Trimble: If we were not so short of time, I might be tempted to reflect on the history of decommissioning as it is more than nine years since the Government introduced the concept. I shall restrain myself from going back over the whole period, but it is worth making some reference to the past couple of years.
	The hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) referred to the fact that the agreement sets out a two-year period for the achievement of complete disarmament. Members will recall that, before the agreement was made, the Government gave us their authoritative interpretation of that part of the agreement. Their view was that the meaning of that part of the agreement was that decommissioning should begin immediately. That was the intention as far as the Government were concerned. Indeed, that was also the case for us and for those people who followed our lead in voting for the agreement in the referendum. We did so in the belief that decommissioning would begin that summer and be completed in 2000. But it was not.
	I find it very strange that, over the past three years, the Government have sat and allowed themselves to be lectured about the need for full implementation by republicans when the people who have been most guilty of default are republicans. Instead of getting down to examine each jot and tittle of alleged default by the Government, the republicans should contemplate their comparative complete failure to fulfil their part of the bargain.
	The Government should never have tolerated a situation where the people who were so grievously at fault themselves lectured them about full implementation. Equally, of course, the Government should never have tolerated that situation developing. There was linkage in the agreement, but, unfortunately, although the then Secretary of State talked about the linkage, she failed to ensure that linkage was, in fact, occurring, so, consequently, we saw the situation deteriorating.
	The Government's approach was seriously flawed in the aftermath of the agreement, and I wonder whether they would ever have exerted themselves to try to bring about decommissioning if we had not insisted on it. It was wrong in a sense that it was left to me and my colleagues in the Ulster Unionist party to insist on that, but we did. Of course, as the House knows, that led to the suspension of devolution, and then to a promise by the republican movement itself in 2000.
	Whatever play of words they might have had about the agreement being endorsed only by Sinn Fein, on 7 May 2000, those in the republican movement unequivocally promised to put their weapons completely beyond use in such a way as to maximise public confidence. It is important to hold on to the fact that a clear promise was made that has not been kept. That promise was made in the form of a statement by the IRA's alleged army council. It is important to bear it in mind that the very clear promise that it made has not been kept. Of course, as a result of that, I and my colleagues resigned office in 2001, which led to the beginning of decommissioning in the autumn of that year.
	The Minister has already said how that beginning was not followed through, but there is also the very drawback to which my hon. Friend the Member for South Antrim (David Burnside) referred: the way in which the form of decommissioning was self-defeating. It should have been visible and it should have spoken for itself, but instead we simply had the rather opaque statement from the independent commission. I understand why those on the commission adopted that course. I advised them against doing so, but I know the reasons that they had on their minds. I am sure that they were well meaning, but they were wrong. The mistake that they made has had a significant impact on the credibility of the IICD. That is a simple fact. They made a mistakea well-intentioned, honest mistake, but it was a mistake, and we live with the consequences of that mistake. That is significant for the future, too.
	The question is what is needed in terms of the current situation. Clearly, we want to see all the paramilitaries decommission. I emphasise the word all. We have had a small act of decommissioning from a loyalist paramilitary organisationindeed, the first act of decommissioning came from a loyalist paramilitary organisationbut we want to see all the paramilitaries decommission. No doubt, many of the calls made this evening will focus on republicans, but I want the House to understand the fact that we are just as anxious to see decommissioning by loyalist paramilitaries as well.
	We cannot make any reference to loyalist paramilitaries without recording again our horror at their behaviour in recent weeks. There is some hope that the situation in Belfast will quieten down, but I wonder whether that it not just because the slightly more intelligent elements in loyalism are realising that there is a need to clean up their act, rather than through any genuine change of heart. Although there might be a slight improvement on the ground, it does not cure the underlying problem that loyalist paramilitaries have behaved very badly over the past four years, and the calls that are made for paramilitaries to decommission and go awayfor them not to be there any moreapply to them just as much.
	I return to the question of verification in relation to decommissioning. My hon. Friend the Member for South Antrim mentioned an idea that he has mentioned a number of times before, although I would have quibbled slightly with the composition of the committee that he mentioned, but that is a minor detail. He was making the serious point that the present arrangements for verification will not be sufficient. There is a clear need for the Government to consider how the IICD can have its credibility reinforced.
	We need more than just the verification of acts of decommissioning. Even if, for the sake of argument, we had a situation in which the paramilitaries announced that they were disbandingperhaps they will decide to adopt the word on which the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford is so keenand made a statement to that effect, would that statement have any credibility? I doubt it. How could we prove whether a secret army had disbanded?
	The Government have focused on the need to see a complete cessation of all forms of paramilitary activityno more shooting, beating, recruiting, targeting or gathering of intelligence. However, the absence of those activities can be judged only on a daily basis. Just because we have had a week, a month or two months of complete absence of paramilitary activity, can we be assured that the paramilitaries have genuinely disbanded and gone away?

Tom Harris: While both sides of the House want complete implementation of the Belfast agreement and, ultimately, the disbandment of all paramilitary organisations, does the right hon. Gentleman accept thatcontrary to what the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) said earliersuch disbandment of the paramilitary organisations, especially the IRA, does not feature in the Belfast agreement?

David Trimble: The focus of the agreement was placed on decommissioning, because if a private army had completely and genuinely disarmedwith no element of rearming taking placethe question is to what extent it still exists as a private army. We are in the territory of euphemism, and decommissioning was a euphemism for disbandment at one stage.
	Even if someone from an organisation said that it had disbanded and we saw a complete cessation of all forms of paramilitary activity day by day, I still wonder how we could be sure. We need verification not only of acts of decommissioning, but of the absence of paramilitary activity and the status of those who had hitherto been part of a paramilitary organisation. Of course, that would involve more than just people who could give the public authoritative information about what was going on.
	I refer the House to the comments by Lord Kilclooney last night. He said that we need
	not only decommissioning but real sanctions if those who decommission break the peace.[Official Report, House of Lords, 10 February 2003; Vol. 644, c. 544.]
	To have any form of verification with no sanctions linked to it would not be worth while. We have lacked sanctions throughout the process, and we have made that criticism time and again in the past four years. The Government's approach, since the agreement, has been all carrot and no stick, and that has not worked.
	My hon. Friends and I, and those whom we represent, see the contrast between the vigour with which the Government pursue the disarmament of Saddam Hussein and the sanctions that are being brought to bear to achieve that. The Government are making a focused attempt to achieve his disarmament, by means that are primarily sanction-led, with any inducements coming a long way behind, which is a considerable contrast with the situation in Northern Ireland. Added to that contrast is the fact that between 1,200 and 1,500 servicemen who are natives of Northern Ireland are deployed in, or are on their way to, the Gulf. They will be asked to risk, and possibly sacrifice, their lives to achieve the disarmament of Saddam Hussein. The Government expect them to do that willingly while, at the same time, looking over their shoulders at their homeland, where the Government are adopting a radically different approach. While the character of those paramilitary organisations is different in quantity and perhaps different to some small extent in degree, is it really such a different situation? Are the terrorist organisations in Northern Ireland radically different in nature from the state-sponsored terrorism on which the Government are focusing? They will not think so.
	Until the Government have more coherence in their approach on these two matters, they will be exposed to the charge of hypocrisy. As we have said to the Government over the years, there is a clear need for them to rethink their approach, to move away from a policy that focuses purely on carrots and to consider the sanctions that they will bring to bear now and in the future on paramilitary organisations to ensure that the agreement that they say that they endorsed is implemented fully by them.

Lembit �pik: It is with some regret that we all see this debate running from year to year. I listened with interest to the Conservative spokesman, the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies), although I differ on the importance of the Government's use of the definite or indefinite article. I do not accept that that is at the core of this discussion. It is perfectly obvious what is the important word in the statement; it is not important whether it is one act or a number of acts of completion. It is also pretty obvious that whether one reckons that there is more than one act or a single one is simply a semantic difference of definition.
	I sought to intervene on the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford, although he would not accept my intervention, to ask him, as he is so full of criticism of the Government's current policy, what he would do differently if he were Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. In fact, it could not be substantively different because we must remember that the order before us today is the consequence of a Conservative Government policy that was passed on 27 February 1997, before the Labour party had taken over the Government Benches.

Quentin Davies: rose

Lembit �pik: Unlike the hon. Gentleman, who refused to give way to me, I am happy to give way to him.

Quentin Davies: That is very gracious of the hon. Gentleman, but he did refer to me. Simply, were I Secretary of State, I would not have released the prisoners without decommissioning. I would not have given Sinn Fein additional bonuses, special status here or an offer of amnesty. I would have responded to breaches, starting from Florida, which the Government did not do, and I would have excluded it from Stormont rather than suspend the whole of Stormont after Stormontgate, as I explained to the House in advance last July. As Secretary of State, I would now be talking about decommissioning, and the need for complete decommissioning and disbandment. I would not be using mealy-mouthed, indirect terms.

Lembit �pik: In terms of the hon. Gentleman's comment that I am gracious, I simply say that I am happy to give way. As we have heard before, the fact that someone has a past does not mean that they cannot have a future, and I would apply that to him this afternoon.
	In terms of the hon. Gentleman's list of action stepsthe things that the Conservatives would have done differentlyI would surmise from that that they would have had a different policy: tough talking, quick to react to apparent breaches and probably wrong. One judges the future behaviour of a political party or a Secretary of State on the basis of past performance. I recall that, on a number of occasions, the Conservative party has predicted the collapse of the process, the reinstigation of violence in Northern Ireland and various failures and obstacles that would be insuperable to the process before us. On each successive occasion, its predictions have turned out to be unfounded. I make that point because it is important that we do not play party politics with Northern Ireland. I would love the Liberal Democrats to be on the Government Benches, but not so much that I am willing to try to score opportunistic points against the Minister. She has pursued a policy that few could deny has taken Northern Ireland closer to a sustained peace and a normalised situation than anything in the past three decades.
	Let me remind the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford that what we are discussing today is not a radical departure from anything that his party did when in government. On 27 February 1997, the Conservatives instigated the Act that we are discussing. The hon. Gentleman said that, if he were Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, a core element of his programme would be to set a timetable. However, the Conservatives already gave us a timetable of 10 years. I do not think that things had to be renewed over the first five years, but every year thereafter, up to 2007, they had to be renewed. We are therefore following the spirit of what John Major instigated.
	We should acknowledge that much of the progress has been as a result of pragmatic decisions by John Major. He was a tremendous instrument for peace and, in the histories of Northern Ireland politics, he deserves always to be given credit for what he did. The hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford criticised the Government for being mealy-mouthed and for lacking frankness and clarity, but John Major did not tell anybody that he was talking to the terrorists. It just slipped out. It was a leak. At the time, people across the parties said that they understood the importance of what was happening and therefore supported it. The Liberal Democrats have been consistent on that.
	The Liberal Democrats support this order and, by and large, its implications. We have not finished work yet and the kind of negotiations that have gone on beforein public and behind the sceneswill be necessary to make progress. I respect the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford for holding different views, but I do not feel able to accept views that do not accord with my non-party political analysis of decommissioning.
	The right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) was right to say that he and his party have exerted considerable influence in the achievement of some of the decommissioning that has taken place. That decommissioning may have been symbolic but we all know how important symbolism is in Northern Ireland politics. He was also right to highlight the dissatisfaction that we all feel about how little has been done. We are a long way from total decommissioning. The right hon. Gentleman's colleague, the hon. Member for South Antrim (David Burnside), spoke about the difficulty of verification. Just as the Inland Revenue has trouble in verifying the details of some self-employed people's tax returns, the Decommissioning Commission will have difficulty in verifying what arms have been handed in by individuals and organisations who were outside the rule of law in the first place.
	I do not get hung up on the issue of verification because what we want is decommissioning that will materially weaken the ability of the paramilitary organisations to restart trouble. However, I agree with the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford that we have not seen a great deal of decommissioning. I may share some of the frustrations in his soothsaying, but I will not repeat them other than to say that I agree with what he said about the signal lack of progress of the IRA and some of the key loyalist organisations.

Martin Smyth: The hon. Gentleman accepted that a person with a past must have a future; but, surely, performing symbolic acts of decommissioning at the same time as commissioning new weapons in Florida gives the lie to any intention of going down the road of peace.

Lembit �pik: It depends on how far one wants to go with the analogy. For example, I have met people who want to give up smoking. They keep saying that they want to give up smoking, but they still go out and buy a packet of fags for weeks after they have made their new year resolution. There is probably a similar tendency towards the use of violence and towards holding on to the means of violence. Decommissioning is such a big step for people who have become used to using violent methods to achieve their objectives that I am not surprised that there are probably significant internal arguments and divisions within such organisations. The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point, but I hope that he will also accept that it is in the nature of the human condition to take time to move away from things that were closely cherished as weapons, tools or modus operandi in the past.
	The other interesting point that the right hon. Member for Upper Bann made was to highlight the contradiction between the Government's approach to disarming Iraq and their approach to disarming the IRA and loyalist organisations. He drew the conclusion that this inconsistency meant that perhaps there needs to be a tougher policy in Northern Ireland. I suppose that I would take another view. I suggest that the great irony in this situation is not the approach taken in Northern Ireland, but the approach to Iraq that has apparently been foisted on us in the United Kingdom by the Prime Minister and others.
	We have learned in Northern Ireland that negotiation and shouting is a more effective means of progress than threats and shooting. It is a terrible tragedy that, despite the laudable achievements of this Government and, to some extent, the previous Conservative Government in achieving peace through peaceful means and through the threat of violence but not its application, we may be thrust into a war that is based on the exact opposite principles. It is a terrible inconsistency and it might be worth the Prime Minister looking at the recent history of Northern Ireland and learning that one does not make progress in reducing terrorism or international threats by waging war oneself. If I say any more about that, you, Madam Deputy Speaker, may rule me out of order. However, I ask the Minister to consider whether she can act as a useful conduit between the wise sages from Northern Ireland in this Chamber, those who take an interest in the subject and the Prime Minister, who seems to forget the lessons of history.
	I also want to highlight the importance of the International Independent Commission on Decommissioning. We have already heard praise of General de Chastelain, who has the unenviable job of trying to make sense of the subject in a practical way andthis may sound familiarof issuing reports to Government about the degree of decommissioning that has taken place. I am interested in some of the suggestions that we have heard in the debate about how things might be done better. The Government need to remain flexible, because improvements could be suggested by any side. They could come from the Conservatives, Ulster Unionists, the Democratic Unionist party or others.
	At present, however, we have the least worst way of approaching the matter. It has delivered some progress and, although there is a depressing underlying level of violence in Northern Ireland, there has been a measurable decrease in violence overall and in the numbers of bombings and shootings that have been carried out in the name of the causes that the paramilitaries claim to hold. I am optimistic that we have made progress, and I would be loth for a dramatic shift to take place that led to the hardening of policy or to the withdrawal of opportunities. We are making slow progress.
	The Liberal Democrats will support the order. However, as I said last year, I hope that we will not be here again next year doing the same thing. However idealistic it may be to believe that decommissioning will happen in the next 12 months, we have to assume that even most of those involved in the paramilitary organisations have realised that their representatives have made far more progress in the interests of their respective causes and the people whom they purport to represent through peaceful means than they ever will by using the arms that they seem so loth to give in.

Peter Robinson: Madam Deputy Speaker, you are most fortunate to be presiding over your second Northern Ireland debate in a short period. You must be the Speaker's favourite to be appointed again.
	There are some common strands between this debate and last night's debate, because the issues have a common sourcethe Belfast agreement. I feel the same exasperation as the Liberal Democrat spokesman, who referred to the ritual of coming to the House to debate these issues. It could be described as a Westminster farce that runs and runs. It is a timely and periodic reminder of the failure of the Government's policy and the process in which they have invested so much. It is right that periodically we see the embarrassment not just of the Government but of the leader of the Ulster Unionist party. Although he may be trying revisionism today, having told us about all the mistakes and errors that everybody else has committed, he failed to tell us that it was he who accepted them all the time, did not point them out at the time, and tried to sell them to the people of Northern Ireland. That suggests that he was suckered at the time. Having dismissed the advice of other Unionists in Northern Ireland, including some members of his own party, he now finds out that they were right and he was wrong, and is seeking to retrieve from the ashes a semblance of dignity. However, the Northern Ireland electorate have caught on to him, both on that and on many other issues.
	While I have some respect for the Decommissioning Commissionthose of us who have met its members recognise that they are genuine and want to do their jobI question the Government for handing out money week after week for it to do absolutely nothing. It must be frustrating for people to hang around the not very salubrious building in which they are housed, hoping that someone just might give them a phone call one day and tell them that they can come along and spot something for themselves. I agree with the shadow Secretary of State that we are witnessing the result of sloppy negotiations. There was no direct tie between decommissioning and the important issue of prison releases. There was a clear comparison, as both were to take place over a two-year period, but there was no requirement that one should be linked to the other.
	If that was the result of incompetent negotiations, it was also the result of ensuing incompetent action by the Executive. The Government had it within their power to ensure that the two were linked, and that action on prison releases was linked to a requirement that the republican movement hand over its illegal weapons, which it is still using in Northern Ireland. There has not been enough recognition in this debate that the Provisional IRA is still an active organisation and is still shooting. One has only to look at the statistics in the Chief Constable's report to see just how active those guns are, even in current circumstances. We had better remember that those are not symbolic items, as the Liberal Democrat spokesman told us; they are lethal weapons, used to kill and threaten and to extract concessions from the Government.

Tom Harris: Does the hon. Gentleman set any store by, or place any value on, IRA and other paramilitary ceasefires that have been in effect both before and since 1997? Does he accept that, internecine warfare in those paramilitary groups notwithstanding, the quality of life of the people whom he represents is materially better and more secure as a direct result of the Government's policies and the Belfast agreement?

Peter Robinson: I wish the hon. Gentleman would come to Northern Ireland with my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Dodds) or me. I would take him to Cluan Place in my constituency and my colleague would take him to a number of spots in north Belfast so that he could ask the people there whether life has improved for them.
	We are speaking of an illegal organisation that should never be rewarded for stopping, slowing down or pausing from doing that which it should never have been doing in the first place. The number of acts of terrorism has been steadily increasing since the signing of the Belfast agreement. The statistics are there for the hon. Gentleman to see. Although the propaganda might suggest that he is right, the facts on the ground tell a very different story.
	The propaganda exists because of how much is invested by political leaders in the processby the Prime Minister, who made pledges. He came to Northern Ireland at the most critical period of the referendum and personally signed large billboards pledging that certain things would not happen until decommissioning occurred. Those pledges were broken. He came to the Dispatch Box in the House and made it clear to the then Leader of the Opposition that decommissioning was a requirement before various things would happen in terms of Sinn Fein being rewarded. Again, that undertaking was broken. Those undertakings were passed on to the people of Northern Ireland, and on that basis many of them may have supported the Government's policy.
	The Leader of the Ulster Unionist party, although he did not exactly use the words, admitted that he had been suckered as well, and that he had taken the commitments made by Sinn Fein and retailed them to the community in Northern Ireland. Many of us will recognise nowI shall come to the Minister of State's remarks about the DUP's position in relation to Sinn Feinthat there is one certainty: no one should ever take the word of Sinn Fein-IRA about anything that they might do. They have promised much and delivered very little; some say nothing.
	There is no requirement whatever on Unionists to say what they might do for Sinn Fein until Sinn Fein has done it. It is up to them to take the actions necessary to meet the Government's criteria, set down not just by the United Kingdom Government, but by the Government of the Irish Republic, even before the Belfast agreement, when they said that for anybody to be involved in the political process in Northern Ireland, there was a requirement for them to be committed to exclusively peaceful and democratic means. That is a requirement placed on Sinn Fein, not on others. The pledges of the Prime Minister and the promises of the leader of the Ulster Unionist party were broken.
	As regards decommissioning, all we have had from the beginning of the process are two actsof quite what, nobody knows, because nobody has been specific about it. The first event, on 23 October 2001, was described by the decommissioning body in the following terms:
	We have witnessed an event we regard as significant.
	Following that statement, my colleagues and I went to meet General de Chastelain and his team and asked them whether they regarded their meeting with us as significant. He said that he did, so that might give the House an indication of the significance of the event that he had witnessed involving any weapons being put beyond use. But it was enough for the leader of the Ulster Unionist party who, with the broadest smile that any of us have seen from him in many years, came out to say:
	This is the day some people said would never happen.
	He heralded it as a great day and a great beginning. Now[Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North is right. The leader of the Ulster Unionist party at least recognises now that that and the further act that occurred on 8 April 2002 were simply stunts and gestures by the Provisional IRA.
	The hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) put his finger on the key issue. If decommissioning is a matter of confidenceif it is to give people confidence that the IRA and Sinn Fein have put violence behind them and want to walk a democratic paththe key issue is whether their stockpile of weapons has reduced since the beginning of the process. Although in October 2001 and April 2002 something occurredquite what we do not know, because it has never been specified by the decommissioning bodythe reality that we are all certain of is that the IRA and Sinn Fein have brought more weapons in. A body that on the one hand says We have got rid of some of our weapons, but that on the other hand is bringing them in, not just from Florida but from elsewhere, and ends up with more guns than it had at the beginning, is hardly likely to bring confidence to the Unionist community.

Martin Smyth: Will the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that even the Florida escapade came to light as a result of an envelope breaking in a post office sorting room? From that we gained much information, and, thankfully, the authorities have managed to do a great deal to protect us.

Peter Robinson: The hon. Gentleman is right. He and I are both on the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee. We have looked at this matter, and the disturbing factor for us and for others is that it was discovered accidentally. For how long before it was discovered had this been going on? How many guns got in before the accidental finding at the post office sorting room? We know that some 150 weapons were discovered at that time. How many previous occasions were there? Would the decommissioning body consider that to be a substantial amount of weapons? If so, is it more substantial than the number of weapons that it saw being put beyond use?
	As the shadow Secretary of State said, it is not simply a matter of decommissioning; it is about the organisation disbanding and dismantling, putting a line behind all its violent past and making it very clear that it will not pick it up in the future. It has to be a total end to the paramilitary organisation.
	Those of us who read in today's issue of The Times accounts by leading members of the Provisional movement will see that there is no intention on the part of that organisation to put violence behind it. Its members want to keep their organisation in place. They want to hold on to their weapons. Whatever verbiage the Prime Minister might use in any statement over the next number of days, the reality on the ground is that their organisation will remain intact and their guns will remain in their bunkers.
	Against that reality, for the Minister of State to indicate in the House that the Democratic Unionists might in some way view differently how they deal with Sinn Fein is absolute folly. Why would any party want to change its attitude to Sinn Fein, when Sinn Fein has not changed its attitude to violence? It is clear that nothing in Sinn Fein's behaviour in the past or in the present, or indeed as far as we know in its future intentions, suggests that it is an organisation about to change. The Government are deluding themselves if they believe that the Provisional IRA will divvy up and become full-blown Democrats in the near future.

Lembit �pik: Does the hon. Gentleman think that not a single member of Sinn Fein genuinely believes that a peaceful solution would be a better approach?

Peter Robinson: All members of Sinn Fein might fall into that category, but a peaceful outcome for them is everybody else surrendering, and that will not happen. The people in Northern Ireland will not surrender to terrorists now, even though they may use the pinstripe suit more than their balaclavas at present. The reality is that the only kind of peace they want is peace on their terms.
	What annoys the Unionist community most is the fact that the whole political process has to be held back because of Sinn Fein, the fact that the Government do not have the courage to say Here are the rules of entry into the democratic club. If you do not abide by these rules, you are not part of that club, and the club will continue in existence. The Government instead tell them If Sinn Fein do not meet the criteria, we shall not have any democracy in Northern Ireland. That is the Government's responseeverybody in Northern Ireland must suffer if the IRA does not divvy up. That is not the way forward. If there are no acts of completion, even though they are poorly definedif they are defined at allby the Government, it is clearly their intention that the democrats should suffer along with the terrorists.
	I should like to say one word about loyalist paramilitaries. We are inclined to spend a lot of time discussing the decommissioning of the Provisional IRA because there is a direct relationship between it and the Executive in Northern Ireland, of which its representatives are a part. Of course, that is not the case with regard to loyalist paramilitaries, but they fall into exactly the same category in every other respect. There is no case to be made for allowing loyalist paramilitaries to hold on to illegal weapons. That needs to be clearly stated and they must give up their weapons in precisely the same way as the Provisional IRA and other republicans. If there is any evidence of the need for that to happen, it has been seen in Northern Ireland in the past few weeks and months, when the paramilitaries have turned their weapons on themselves. We have seen areas of north and west Belfast, as well as areas further afield and even in my constituency, being turned into a battleground where bodies have been found on the street, people have been forced from their homes and the general community has been left in terror. Decommissioning must therefore begin with loyalist paramilitaries, just as it must take place in the republican movement and among those on its fringes.
	I sit down giving one word of notice to the Government. They have committed themselves to following a course in which acts of completion are necessary. By their very nature, acts of completion must take place over a relatively short period. It would not be tenable for the Government to come to the House in a year's time to extend the legislation. They should be making it very clear that acts of completion are required now, that the opportunity to carry them out with an amnesty will end with the order and that if those involved do not complete within the specified period, the full rigour of the law will be brought against those who represent them and the organisation itself. Unless the Government get tough, there will be no action from Sinn Fein-IRA. Sinn Fein-IRA have managed to lead the Government by the nose year upon year. Every time they misbehave and bring institutions into suspension, the answer for the Government is to make more concessions to them. That is not the way forward. Unless there is a punishment for Sinn Fein-IRA, they will never meet the requirements that the Government would have for them.

David Burnside: In the next two or three weeks, I hope and expect that this House will meet to authorise the sanction against the international threat from Saddam Hussein. From all parts of the House, with very few exceptions, we will support and follow the Prime Minister in the strong stand that he has taken.
	The Minister will understand why we do not understand how the Prime Minister's strong stand against international terrorismthe good from the evil of 11 Septemberis translated into Northern Ireland. When Gerry and Martin, the two members of the army council, come to Downing street, sit on the other side of the table and stare the Prime Minister in the eye, they say We are committed to the peace process and he believes them. They then go home, authorise spying in the heart of government, steal the documents and write on the margin, referring to the Prime Minister as a naive idiot. I do not believe that the Prime Minister is a naive idiot, but his eyes seem closed in his negotiations with the terrorist leadership in Northern Ireland. Why does he not invite Saddam Hussein to Downing street, look him straight in the eye and say Saddam, are you coming into the peace process? I know that Saddam would say, I am committed to the peace process, and I've got arms inspectors all over Iraq inspecting this, that and the other while representatives are at the United Nations. We're trying to get a peaceful solution. Would the Prime Minister do that with Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness?
	The key to decommissioning is verification and sanction. At a much earlier stage of the peace process, I suggestedthis went through the Ulster Unionist party to Downing streethelpful and constructive methods to try to restore confidence in a political process in which the Ulster Unionist people no longer have confidence. I suggested a Privy Council committee comprising the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition, the leader of the Liberal Democrats, the leader of the Ulster Unionist party, the General Officer Commanding Northern Ireland and the Chief Constable, which, adhering to the Mitchell principles of non-violence, could produce a report. We know how many weapons and explosives are there, so why do we fudge the issue? Decommissioning means the handing over and destructionthe non-use and non-availabilityof thousands of guns and tonnes of explosives. If the Minister speaks to the Chief Constable and the GOC, they will verify that that is the volume of armaments within the provisional IRA. They will also give an evaluation of the armaments that are held by the Ulster Defence Association, the Ulster Volunteer Force, the Red Hand Commando, the Loyalist Volunteer Force, or whatever name one wants to give to the loyalist paramilitary organisations. The international commission knows the amounts.
	If that committee was set up, it could restore the confidence of the Unionist and law-abiding community in Northern Ireland. The Prime Minister could come to this House to tell us that he has had a report from the Chief Constable and the GOC saying that the armaments have been handed over, that there is no evidence of the importing of arms, that there are no punishment beatings, and that there was no cover-up on Castlereagh or Stormontgatethat we were wrong about that, it was all mist in our eyes and it did not take place. If he could convince us that the terrorists have moved along the road from terrorism to democracy, that would restore confidence in the process.

Jeffrey M Donaldson: I propose an addition to my hon. Friend's committeesomeone who would command respect right across the community in Northern Ireland. He is a Privy Councillor and my predecessor as Member of Parliament for Lagan Valley, and he now sits in the other place. I am referring to Lord Molyneaux.

David Burnside: The message has been passed to the Front Bench. I could not agree more with my hon. Friend.
	Such an organisation for the purpose of verification would restore confidence, but we also need sanction. The sanction of war is about to be carried out against Saddam Hussein. What sanction will be carried out against Sinn Fein if it does not decommission? It wants to be at Stormont; it wants to use the institution that it once hated; it wants to be in the forum of local government. There are elements within Sinn Fein who want to take the democratic route, but they are being allowed to get away with playing as terrorists and democrats at the same time. We should take away the democratic benefits from Sinn Feinthat will really exercise sanction and pressure against itand reward the democratic parties in Northern Ireland with a forum of local government at Stormont that is answerable and accountable to the people. If that means that Sinn Fein has to be marginalised and isolated from the process for a period of time, so be it. I do not believe that Sinn Fein-IRA, with their terrorist organisation, want to go back to a full-scale war, but they want to play it both ways, and have suckered the Government into allowing them to do so.
	The Government are the sovereign power in the United Kingdom. The Prime Minister has the power, the authority and the majority in this House to make his international stand against terrorism a domestic stand against terrorism, and he would receive widespread support in the House for doing so. Decommissioning has become a farce because the Government have let the provisional IRA and the loyalist paramilitaries off the hook by not verifying the decommissioning and not exerting sanctions against the terrorist organisations. It is time that the Government acted, in the way that they act internationally, against the domestic threat of terrorism.

Jane Kennedy: We have held a serious and constructive debate about a serious and sobering matter. I agree with all hon. Members who said that it is a disappointing day. It is disappointing to have to move such an order in such circumstances.
	I am grateful to the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) for his constructive approach to the order and for saying that he would not divide the House. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik) for similar indications.
	The hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford and several other hon. Members questioned our definition of acts of completion. There has been no lack of clarity. We may debate the terms that we use but there is no lack of clarity about what is necessary to restore the confidence that has been lost. We are discussing giving up violence completely and in a way that satisfies everyone. I refer specifically to the IRA because of Sinn Fein's association with it, and Sinn Fein's responsibility in its partnership role in government in Northern Ireland.
	We want a move of such significance that it satisfies not only me as Minister with responsibility for security, but hon. Members and the public in Northern Ireland, that the IRA has ceased its campaign. That will enable us to move the democratic process forward, with every party that wants to be in government abiding by the same democratic rules.
	The IRA needs to disappear as a terrorist organisation. I leave the exact detail to that organisation to determine. However, it must be done in a way that gives confidence to the public in Northern Ireland and to hon. Members.

Quentin Davies: The Minister said that the IRA needs to disappear as a military organisation. That is the best formulation that the Government have made. Although we all agree with a phrase such as everyone must abandon violence, it is such a general aspiration that it cannot be defined or verified as a specific act. We need verifiable, specific acts if we are to say that the Belfast agreement has been implemented. That is why I set such store by the word decommissioning.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. That was rather lengthy for an intervention.

Jane Kennedy: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's intervention because it leads to my next point. The right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) and the hon. Members for South Antrim (David Burnside) and for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) also alluded to the visibility of the process and the ability of all sides to say confidently that they believe that the move has been made. In that context, we are not simply considering the IRA, but all the organisations that need to put violence behind them.
	I listened with interest to the suggestion that the hon. Member for South Antrim made for the Committee and to other contributions about its membership. We shall reflect on that. I shall not respond definitively today, but it will form part of the discussion that we shall all hold. I cannot emphasise too strongly that transparency is required to restore confidence among political parties that are engaged in the great project in Northern Ireland.
	The right hon. Member for Upper Bann rightly drew our attention again to the aspirations that people had when they voted in favour of the Belfast agreement. I agreed with a large part of what he had to say. He talked about what is needed, and, although we are talking today within the narrow confines of renewing the provisions that will allow decommissioning to take place, I hope that I have given the House a clear indication that decommissioning on its own is not now enough to restore the confidence that we are seeking to rebuild.

Lembit �pik: The Minister could say exactly the same thing about the debates that we are having about Saddam Hussein, so before she finishes, I hope that she will address this serious question: why are the Government taking such a totally different approach in Northern Ireland from the one that they are taking on Iraq? I suspect that a number of hon. Members might think that we should take an approach to this question more like the one that is being taken on Iraq. There is definitely a contradiction.

Jane Kennedy: I shall resist any encouragement to go down that route, not out of any lack of willingness to debate the point but because the issue that we are discussing today is a narrow one, and the Government's position on Iraq is a matter for debate on another day. I do not accept the proposition that the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire and other hon. Members have made that the situations are comparable. We are dealing here with a process in which, for a significant period of time, we have been engaged in a partnership with political organisations that have been undergoing a political processhowever limited it may be, and however critical people might be of it. We must consider that if we are serious about returning to a situation in which we can restore devolved government.
	The hon. Member for Belfast, East talked about the failure of the Belfast agreement, but devolution is the real prize that we are striving to achieve. It was about local people making those decisions, and it worked. It resulted in energetic, cross-community government bringing solid benefits for the people of Northern Ireland. We saw a degree of co-operation being delivered that was unthinkable until a few years ago, and in Northern Ireland there is a strong wish, which we share, to return to that.
	A number of hon. Members talked about sanctions, but I do not believe that this is the time to be talking about sanctions in Northern Ireland, given the engagement that we are seeking with all the parties. For there to be a return to devolutionwith the sustained effort on economic and social problems that we saw developing under the Executive, and the everyday issues being dealt with by local politicians in a way that matters to ordinary peoplethere must be an end to violence. What we need now is the definitive step that we have been talking about here today. It is clear that we have reached a crunch point at which Sinn Fein and the IRAI am not talking about them exclusivelymust commit themselves exclusively to a peaceful and democratic path.

Roy Beggs: Does the hon. Lady agree that Sinn Fein-IRA must be well aware of the malcontents within their organisation who have gone to the Real IRA and the Continuity IRA? It would demonstrate a commitment to a peaceful future on the part of Sinn Fein-IRA if they did more to ensure that those criminals were behind bars.

Jane Kennedy: I have no disagreement with the point that the hon. Gentleman makes. It is a very valid point indeed.
	We cannot now carry on with the IRA being half in and half out of the process towards peaceful and normal society in Northern Ireland. If there is real movement, however, we can move quickly to implement the outstanding parts of the Belfast agreement, including the provisions on normalisation. We can implement the provisions in their entiretynot in stages, but together. If we can do that, it is my fervent hope that I shall not be standing here at the Dispatch Box this time next year speaking to the same motion.

It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, Madam Deputy Speaker put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 16.
	The House divided: Ayes 404, Noes 8.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Resolved,
	That the draft Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act 1997 (Amnesty Period) Order 2003, which was laid before this House on 20th January, be approved.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

Prevention and Suppression of Terrorism

That the draft Terrorism Act 2000 (Continuance of Part VII) Order 2003, which was laid before this House on 23rd January, be approved.
	Question agreed to.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

Northern Ireland

That the draft Education and Libraries (Northern Ireland) Order 2003, which was laid before this House on 7th January, be approved.
	Question agreed to.

DIRECT RAIL SERVICES

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.[Derek Twigg.]

George Osborne: I am grateful for this opportunity to raise in Parliament an issue of urgent concern to the people whom I represent in Wilmslow and the surrounding area. Owing to the way our business has panned out today, I could speak for

Bob Russell: Two and a half hours.

George Osborne: Indeed. In fact, that is about the time it takes to travel from Wilmslow to London by train. However, despite a request from the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson), that we make this debate lengthy and that as many people should take part as possible, I intend to keep my remarks relatively brief.
	As I am sure that many Members know, Wilmslow used to be a major station on the west coast main line. Trains between London and Manchester used to stop there regularly during the day. Sadly, over time, the service has shrunk and shrunk, until currently only three trains a day from Manchester call at Wilmslow on their way to London, and only four call there on their way back in the afternoon. The services remain hugely popular with passengers, however, and are very important to the town that I represent.
	I asked for the debate because it has emerged that the Strategic Rail Authority is on the brink of scrapping these important services. As far as I can tell, it will do so with no consultation with local people or local businesses and withoutapparentlypaying any attention to the views of Virgin Trains, the operator which actually runs the service. Indeed, one has to be something of a Sherlock Holmes even to work out that the SRA is about to end the Wilmslow to London service. No press release has ever been issued. No statement has been made. There is nothing on the SRA website.
	On Friday, I visited Wilmslow station to see if there were any clues there, but even Sherlock would have found nothing. There is nothing on the notice board to warn passengers that the service to London could be axed. There is nothing in the train timetables. When I asked staff behind the ticket counter, they knew nothing about the plans either.
	As the local MP, I first knew of the proposal only last month when I read the Mid Cheshire Rail Report, which I am sure is a popular journal. It is produced by a dedicated voluntary group of rail users who had spotted a clue in the SRA's west coast strategy consultation document, published last year on 9 October. I have a copy before me.
	The document sets out the Government's plans for completing the modernisation of the west coast main line and explains how services will run when that modernisation is complete. The document begins with admirable honesty by admitting:
	The West Coast project is a mess, and it is time for bold action.
	The chairman of the SRA, Richard Bowker, states that the draft strategy
	reflects a need to get a grip on the project, to secure a way forward which is deliverable, addresses the needs of all the route's users and represents value for money.
	I understand that the SRA will produce a final strategy once it has received and analysed the responses to the consultation document.
	The west coast strategy document is obviously familiar to the Government, as a debate was held about it in Westminster Hall on 23 October. At that time I asked the Minister of State, Department for Transport, the right hon. Member for Warley (Mr. Spellar), for an assurance that the west coast upgrade would not lead to a worse service for my constituents and that the same number of direct trains would continue to stop at Wilmslow. It was a reasonable question. After all, during the modernisation of the west coast service my constituents have borne a heavy burden. They have already suffered many delays due to the updating of the line. Indeed, for the first part of next year, the entire line through Wilmslow will be closed, as part of that modernisation. So I did not think it unreasonable to ask the Minister of State for an assurance that, having paid a heavy price for modernisation, the people whom I represent would receive the same service at the end of the process, but he did not respond to my specific request. I do not particularly blame him for that, and I did not think much about it at the time because I assumed that, if there had been threat to the Wilmslow service, it would have been flagged up in the strategic document.
	What I had not appreciated was that the SRA is planning that no trains should stop at Wilmslow. I had not appreciated that fact because those plans are not mentioned in the strategy document. In fact, Wilmslow is not mentioned in the entire document. Only when we look very carefully and do a bit of detective work, as the mid-Cheshire rail users group has done, do we see what is really planned.
	The table on page 12 is entitled, Typical journey times in minutes, number of stops and daytime service levels (Monday to Friday) for long distance passenger services from London, and it tells us that from September nextfrom winter 2004, as it puts itthere will be 29 trains a day between Manchester and London and that those trains will go via Stoke-on-Trent, which is on a different line from Wilmslow. That is fine, because that service is very similar to the one that currently operates. It stops at Stoke and Macclesfield, and it will be familiar to hon. Members who use itindeed, I do so every week.
	A further service is mentioned, called the Manchester peak fast service, which is the new crown jewel in the west coast main line modernisation strategy, and the document says that there will be three fast trains a day on that service. I understand that those trains will use the Crewe line, which goes through Wilmslow. That would be fine as well, because, as I say, a couple of services use that line and stop at Wilmslow every day. However, the detail of the table shows that only one stop is planned for that service. That stop could be Wilmslow, Stockport or elsewhere, but everyone now assumes that it will not be Wilmslow and that it will probably be Stockport. So if we look hard at that rather innocuous tablefor example, at the asterisk at the bottom, which indicates that three trains currently routed via Crewe will instead go via Stokeand we add it all together, we reach the conclusion that the current service from Wilmslow to London will be scrapped, but that is not spelled out in the document at all.
	What the document does not say, of course, is that this is being done because the journey time from Manchester to London would be two hours and four minutes if those trains stopped at Wilmslow when the new fast service starts. If the trains do not stop at Wilmslow, the journey time will be one hour and 59 minutesmiraculously, one minute less than two hours. Of course that is a huge selling point. At the end of the west coast main line modernisation, the SRA will be able to say that journey times from Manchester to London are under two hours, even if only by a couple of minutes.
	Those who will have to pay the price and who will suffer because those minutes will be shaved off the journey time are the people whom I represent in Wilmslow who use that service. Of course, that is not stated anywhere in the consultation document. Indeed, it could be argued that the document deliberately sets out to obscure that truth from people, and it has not been noticed by any business, local community leader or any stakeholder in Wilmslow, until recently.
	All my attempts to get the truth out of the SRA or just to get a straight answer about what it is planning to do with that service, which is important to my constituents, had failed until about two hours ago. On 24 January, I wrote to Richard Bowker, the chairman of the SRA, asking him what was planned for the Wilmslow to London service. I thought that, as the Member of Parliament who represents Wilmslow, it would be only reasonable for me to know. For three weeks, I have not had an answer. For the past week, I have been calling his office every day to try to get one, but by some miracle, a reply was faxed to me two hours ago. It is amazing what an Adjournment debate will do to concentrate the minds of those in Departments, non-governmental agencies and bodies such as the SRA. Unfortunately, the response was not worth waiting for, because Mr. Bowker still does not come clean about what exactly he plans to do with the Wilmslow service. His letter contains the Orwellian line:
	We are currently considering in depth what services need to be provided for Wilmslow to ensure a joined-up network for all rail users.
	What on earth does that mean? He says that most trains between London and Manchester will not use the line that goes through Wilmslow so it will not be possible to insert additional stops at Wilmslow. But most trains currently do not use the line that goes through Wilmslow. A few trains every day do, and will continue to do so after the new strategy.

David Jamieson: Exactly.

George Osborne: I am glad that the Minister's comment will appear on the record. I know that he is keen on rail services in the north-west of England and I look forward to hearing from him. I hope that those trains will continue to stop at Wilmslowthat is the whole point of this Adjournment debate. I am not asking for additional stops at Wilmslow, much as I would like them. I am simply asking for the service to remain the same in the future as it is today.
	Richard Bowker then says that he has consulted
	passenger representatives, local authorities and other interested stakeholders.
	Well, I have consulted passengers, local authorities and stakeholders in the Wilmslow area and not one of them had any idea, until I told them, that the SRA was planning to scrap the Wilmslow service. It is not surprising that they did not have a clue because, I repeat, the word Wilmslow does not even appear in any of the consultation documents. The letter makes no attempt to explain the SRA's plans or the rationale behind them. Mr. Bowker helpfully ends the letter by saying:
	I understand that you have previously discussed this issue with Stuart Baker, our West Coast Main Line Director.
	However, I have never met Stuart Baker or discussed anything with him, although I am happy to do so in the future.
	If the SRA is supposed to be the body that restores public confidence in the Government's rail programme, it needs to learn some lessons about being straight with the public and straight with the people who represent them in this House. Thankfully, I have discovered someone who does seem willing to tell me the truth about the future of the Wilmslow-London service, and that is Chris Green, the chief executive of Virgin Trains. Three weeks ago, he came to Chester to speak at an excellent rail conference that was organised by John Richards, the current high sheriff of Cheshire. He used his office to organise that conference to talk about rail services in Cheshire, and he persuaded several key players in the industry to come to Chester to take part.
	I was a member of the audience and I asked Mr. Green what he knew of the SRA's plans to cut the Wilmslow service, and for the first time I got a straight answer. I took notes of what he said, and they are as accurate as I could make them without the use of shorthand. He said:
	Wilmslow is obviously a very important rail head, but the SRA feels that the London to Manchester service can only stop once, probably at Stockport, because of the publicity merits of having a 1 hour 59 minute service journey time to Manchester. We don't care whether the journey time is 1 hour 59 minutes or 2 hours 4 minutes, we want to stop at both Stockport and Wilmslow.
	I am not surprised that Virgin wants to go on stopping at Wilmslow, because it is good business for them. Many people use the service, and pay top fares for doing so. According to figures provided to me todaymiraculouslyby Virgin Trains, 78,000 passenger journeys are made every year between Wilmslow and London, which is more than a couple of hundred passengers a day. We should also remember that only three trains stop at Wilmslow on the way from Manchester to London. Together, those journeys generate an annual revenue of around 3.1 million for the company. It is not surprising that the chief executive wants to keep the service and the lucrative business. I am not talking about trying to save a train line that no one uses or that the train company wants to stop operating. It is a popular service that the train company wants to continue to operate.
	Mr. Green thinks that the disadvantage in publicity terms of just missing the two-hour London-Manchester journey time target is more than outweighed by the advantage of stopping at Wilmslow to pick up lots of passengers. If that is the commercial judgment of the chief executive of Virgin Trains, which actually runs the service, I want to know on what grounds the SRA feels that it can second-guess him. What are its grounds for overruling the judgment of the train operator? Where is the evidence? What does it think the impact will be on those passengers who rely on the service? What assessment has it made of the effect on businesses in the Wilmslow area? What consultation has taken place with local people? We have seen nothing from the SRA, because it has told us nothing about its plans, or even that it had plans in the first place. If the SRA will not ask local people what they think, I will have to tell it, as, obviously, I have received loads of letters from constituents who use the service.
	My constituent John Hillmer says that he is dismayed about the decision. Another constituent, Mrs. Yotty, who is a regular user of the service, thinks that the plan is utterly ludicrous. She says:
	I am seriously thinking of going back to my car.
	So much for the targets in the 10-year transport plan to get people to use trains. Mrs. Knight, a pensioner in my constituency, says that she is disgusted and angry about what is being planned. Jim Crockatt, an excellent local councillor, says that he objects
	in the strongest possible terms.
	Mr. Colin Jones says that he is very angry, and that he cannot believe what is being planned.
	If the SRA wants to dismiss the views of individual passengers, let me tell it what other groups are saying. The chief executive of Macclesfield borough council, David Parr, wrote to Mr. Bowker on 28 January and copied the letter to me. He wrote that
	the Wilmslow-Euston connection is a critical service to the local community and is well supported locally. At a time when public rail transport is critical to an integrated transport strategy, it is surprising that the SRA is proposing such a short-sighted approach.
	He went on to ask Mr. Bowker whether he could share with the council the full rationale for the proposals.
	Another huge employer in my constituency, AstraZeneca, the world's fourth largest pharmaceutical company, which employs more than 5,000 people in my constituency, last year, according to its figures, spent 750,000 on 6,500 train tickets to London. It is therefore a big user of the train service. Its site manager at Alderley Park, the big research centre in my constituency, has said:
	As a major global employer based in the North West and Cheshire, we would urge you
	the Strategic Rail Authority
	to at least consult on the future of the Wilmslow West Coast Main Line stop. It would be in the interests of the communities served by the station, including major business users, to see a measured and considered approach to the provision of rail services. As a significant business stakeholder and a user of the service, we would be happy to provide further information and participate in taking the matter forward.
	Surely the SRA is not so arrogant as to ignore a request such as that from one of Britain's leading companies? I repeat that it all it wants to do is
	provide further information and participate in taking the matter forward.
	Before I give the Minister a chance to respondperhaps he will respond at length, given the time availablelet me say that I realise that the plans to end the Wilmslow service are not the Government's plans. They are not dreamt up by the Minister or the Department for Transport, but they are the plans of the Strategic Rail Authority. That authority acts under the directions and guidance of the Secretary of State, and the Government are ultimately responsible for its decisions.
	I would therefore ask the Minister the following questions. First, is he prepared to ask the Strategic Rail Authority to look again at the plans to end the Wilmslow-London direct service? Secondly, will he ask the Strategic Rail Authority to be open with the public about what its plans are, and about why it feels able to second-guess the commercial judgment of Virgin Trains? Thirdly, will he require the SRA to conduct a proper consultation with the passengers, businesses and other organisations affected, of the kind proposed by AstraZeneca, before proceeding with plans to end the Wilmslow service?
	What we are talking about today is a popular, lucrative train service used by 78,000 passengers a year. It is a service that passengers want, businesses want and the train operating company, Virgin, wants. The Strategic Rail Authority plans to ignore that and scrap the route to shave a couple of minutes off the Manchester-London journey time, and bring it to within a whisker below two hours. The chairman of the Strategic Rail Authority claims that he has consulted on the plans, but he issued a consultation document that did not mention them at all. He says that he is reviewing the responses, but no one who will be affected had a chance to respond. By the time we all woke up to what was happening, the date for responses to the consultation had passed. It was the worst kind of high-handed, arrogant and secretive decision making. It will hit the people whom I represent very hard. It is a textbook example of how Government agencies should not behave. I ask the Minister to use his power and influence to intervene and save this vital train service.

David Jamieson: I congratulate the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne) on securing this debate and providing us with a welcome opportunity to discuss important matters. He has spoken with clarity and enormous charm, as he always does. I hope that he will not need Holmesian powers of deduction to understand my explanation of the current status of Wilmslow station. I hope that I can be clear.
	I do not have Holmesian powers of deduction. However, paragraph A13.20 on page 38 of the Strategic Rail Authority's consultative document refers to the Crewe-Sandbach-Cheadle Hulme line. That is the line on which Wilmslow lies, as the hon. Gentleman knows. It is true that not every station is mentioned in the document, but I assure him that the station in his constituency has not been left out. If he looks at the document again he will see that.

George Osborne: From memory, the Minister is referring to the appendix to the consultation document, where he will see that the word Wilmslow is mentioned only twice, on two maps. The appendix does not make it clear that the Wilmslow service is under any threat at all.

David Jamieson: I thought that the hon. Gentleman had said that the document contained no reference to Wilmslow, but now he tells us that there are two references. I assure him that Wilmslow is there, contained on the line. I am sure that many other stations are not mentioned explicitly but are on lines that are discussed in the document.
	As the hon. Gentleman knows, Wilmslow is on the west coast main line, on the branch between Crewe and Stockport. The west coast main line has been the subject of much debate over the years in this House, and rightly so. It is the most important trunk route on Britain's rail network, linking London to the midlands, the north-west and Scotland, and carrying local and long-distance high-speed passenger traffic. The line is also the core national freight route and has significant commuting flows around London, Manchester, Glasgow and Birmingham. The route is undergoing a much-publicised programme of modernisation and upgrading.
	It may help if I briefly explain the history of the works to give some context to the debate over future service levels. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will realise that that history underpins much of the SRA's thinking on the important matters that he has raised.
	The works represent the first major investment on the line since it was electrified in the 1960s and 1970s. The route was extensively renewed and upgraded at that time, but work carried out since has been very limited. In the late 1980s and early 1990s, it became apparent that significant expenditure was required if the line was to be kept up to modern standards and allow capacity for growth. British Rail contemplated upgrades but no investment plans emerged until the passenger upgrade 1 and passenger upgrade 2 agreements between the Office of Passenger Rail Franchising and Railtrack, and Virgin Trains and Railtrack, signed in 1996 and 1998 respectively. Those planned upgrades have been fraught with difficulties. We all know now that Railtrack massively underestimated and undervalued the scale of the work required. As costs rocketed, the time scales for completion were put back again and again. For months, Railtrack struggled to keep a grip on the project. Eventually, it became apparent that the original outputs could not be delivered.
	The users of the route were left in limbo, unsure of what would be provided, how many train paths would be allocated, and when. As Railtrack spiralled into administration, it became apparent that someone else would have to pick up the pieces.
	That task was taken on by the Strategic Rail Authority, the body that we established in 2001 to bring the effective leadership and direction to the industry that had been lacking under the previous privatisation. The authority decided that it was time to develop realistic strategies for completing the project and allocating capacity on a fair basis to meet, as far as possible, the needs of the different users of the line: freight, local passenger services and high-speed, long-distance services.
	On 29 August last year, the authority announced a new master plan to accelerate the west coast works. This was agreed in conjunction with Railtrack and the passenger train and freight operating companies. It changed the programme from a prolonged series of weekend works to dedicated line possessions. The new programme is based around a series of strategic projects, including two 17-week total line possessions. The first will take place later this year between Colwich in Staffordshire and Cheadle Hulme, the section of line that carries the trains from Manchester to London via Stoke. The second is scheduled for the beginning of 2004 on the route from Crewe to Cheadle Hulme on which Wilmslow is situated.
	In both closure periods, direct north-to-south services will be maintained. They will go through Crewe when the Stoke branch is closed and vice versa. When rail services cannot operate, an alternative road service will be provided linking those stations that are closed with those that are not. By adopting such an approach, more than 60 miles of new railway will be delivered in a little over four months. Under the previous delivery programme, that could have taken up to two years.
	Coupled with a series of additional work programmes on the route south of Crewe, the new railway will provide the much-needed extra capacity and increased line speeds of up to 125 mph by 2004. I am sure that that is enormously good news to the people of Tatton, not least those in Wilmslow. I know that closing sections of the line will cause disruption, but the work has to be done sooner or later and this method will ensure disruption is kept to a minimum. The authority and the train operators have worked extremely hard on planning alternative rail services and, where necessary, road services to mitigate the disruption. As the west coast main line has faced decades of neglect, it is hardly surprising that such tough decisions have had to be taken.
	Having agreed a strategy for delivering the upgrade, in October last year, the authority turned its attention to the allocation of capacity on the line. Recognising that demand would outstrip availability, and keen to ensure a solution that addressed the needs of all the different users of the route so far as it is possible, the authority launched a draft strategy and consultation process. In producing the draft strategy, the authority sought input from the entire railway industry, including Network Rail and the affected operators, both passenger and freight. On publication of the draft strategy, a vast array of interested parties were invited to comment. They included industry bodies, the rail passengers committees, local authorities and the regional development agencies.
	The process is a positive example of consultative, co-operative working by the industry and stakeholders. A large number of responses were received from all levels of interest, including from many members of the public and possibly the hon. Gentleman's constituents. The SRA has therefore established a detailed picture of the aspirations of the industry and passengers alike. The consultation closed on 16 October and the authority is currently working up final proposals. At this stage, no final decisions have been taken.
	What does the draft strategy say? The authority explicitly states that the overriding aim is to ensure that the project delivers value for taxpayers' money and that the passenger and freight operators receive early improvements. Nobody will argue with that. Furthermore, the strategy has to be affordable. The days of Railtrack's back-of-an-envelope calculations are well and truly over. Of course, to do that, hard choices have to be made. The authority has reconsidered capacity requirements for each type of trafficpassenger and freightto maximise the opportunities to fit in with other types. Choices have to be made between fast and stopping services, and between passenger and freight services. Those choices seek to ensure the best consensus, given that there is not infinite capacity to meet all demands.
	In discussions between the authority and Virgin Trains, the company has made it apparent that its favoured route between Manchester and London would be via Stoke, to which the hon. Gentleman referred. That is the shorter of the two possible routes, the alternative being via Wilmslow and Crewe. The SRA and Network Rail support that view, so the Stoke line will be the key route for Virgin Trains services. I do not think that he will be surprised to hear that. However, there may still be scope for running some direct services through Wilmslow, and it is even possible that the current service of three trains a day will be maintained if it is demonstrated that it offers value for money and is workable within the overall service pattern. The Strategic Rail Authority is considering those matters in the light of the responses to its consultation.
	Whatever the outcome of those deliberations, passengers travelling from Wilmslow to the north or south will be able to take advantage of enhanced west coast services by connecting at Crewe, Stockport or Manchester, about 25 minutes away by local train services, as many passengers do at present. The draft strategy envisages that the service from Crewe can be increased from 32 trains daily at present to 42 trains in 2004. The journey time from Crewe to London could be reduced from about two hours and eight minutes to about one hour and 43 minutes. Similarly, there will be capacity to increase the service from Manchester from 20 trains a day at present to 29 from 2004, with a journey time reduction to London of half an hour through the provision of 125 mph trains. New Pendolino trains will be provided, the first of which is already in service between Manchester and London. A substantial proportion of the fleet is due to be in service for the winter 2004 timetable.

George Osborne: The Minister correctly said that the west coast main line modernisation will increase capacity and add a number of additional train services. Does he therefore accept that the people whom I represent will find it particularly difficult to understand why their three services a day may be lost? There is more room for those services, not less.

David Jamieson: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman now accepts the value of the Government's enormous investment in the west coast main line and the way in which it will improve capacity in his area. Those of us who represent other parts of the country would very much like some of that investment in our areas.

Dan Norris: Hear, hear.

David Jamieson: The Whip agrees. I have made it clear to the hon. Member for Tatton that, because that work has been carried out, there is an opportunity for the services that currently stop at Wilmslow to be considered. Had we not carried out that work and pursued the route taken in the 1990s, I assure him that, in the unhappy event of his party forming a Government, there would be no service at all on that line. He is nodding sagely as if to agree.

George Osborne: I certainly am not.

David Jamieson: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will reflect on that development, and that his constituents will give it careful consideration.
	The modernisation of the line will provide better punctuality and reliability. The SRA is targeting 90 per cent. of trains to arrive on time by 2008. All this, as I have said, represents substantial expenditure. While the total project cost is about 9.8 billion, the bulk of that is to be spent on renewals, returning the west coast main line to acceptable modern standards. The upgrade work itself has a cost of about 2.3 billion. That is a huge commitment from the Government, but one that we are clear that we must make. The west coast main line is a flagship project. After a series of knocks and setbacks, a deliverable and affordable plan has now emerged. The project is fully under control. The SRA and its industry partners are striving to achieve the best overall balance for the users of the line. I understand that its final strategy is due to be published within weeks and will contain full details of the services to be provided.
	If the hon. Gentleman has further queries, I am sure that he will enter into a dialogue with the SRA, which I assure him will be happy to speak to him about his concerns. I hope that my remarks this evening in the short time available will prevent him from fretting needlessly. I am grateful to him for raising the matter and giving us an opportunity to air it, and I hope that my comments will bring him and his constituents some comfort.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Adjourned accordingly at half-past Five o'clock.